MDedge Endocrinology

Clinicians in pediatrics have noticed a troubling pattern emerge during the pandemic, something that is darkly referred to as “the COVID 19,” or the 19 or more pounds that many of our patients have gained in the past year. This phenomenon has underscored many maxims in pediatric weight management: Mainly that frequent snacking, decreased physical activity, and less parental supervision lead to increased weight gain. But could we be missing another lesson this trend is teaching us? What about the relationship between catastrophe and childhood obesity?

Beyond the increased weight gain with lockdowns, I have observed other evidence in my own practice that childhood trauma or adverse experiences increase obesity. Our electronic medical record system gives an alert when a chart with sensitive information is accessed. One example might be if the patient had been seen at a clinic for children who have been abused. I am heartbroken at how often this happens. Academically, I understand the dire statistics about the incidence of child abuse, but the frequency at which I see this pattern is jarring.

Over the years, one striking correlation became clear among my patient population: Children with obesity were more likely to have been seen in the child abuse clinic than normal-weight peers.

I am far from the only one to have observed this relationship. Television shows focusing on severe obesity, such as “My 600-Pound Life,” often show trauma as both a cause and effect of severe obesity. This theme also became apparent on the show “The Biggest Loser,” which highlighted the difficulty of achieving and maintaining substantial weight loss. If even Hollywood has noticed this association, shouldn’t we be much farther ahead?
 

Pathways to obesity

Adverse childhood experiences (ACE) encompass various causes of child trauma, including abuse or neglect; poverty; household or neighborhood violence; and death, illness, or incarceration of a parent. A pivotal report in 1998 formalized the suspicion that many of us could plainly see: People who suffered ACE have higher incidence of heart disease, COPD, liver disease, incarceration, and drug abuse. For those with six or more ACE, life expectancy averaged 20 years less than those who had none. More recently, a meta-analysis found an odds ratio of 1.46 for adult obesity with known history of childhood trauma.

As a pediatric endocrinologist living in the poorest state of the country, I have clearly observed the correlation between childhood obesity and poverty. While prior generations may have associated child poverty with malnutrition and starvation, we are seeing in modern times that obesity has become a disease of lack. Calorie-dense and processed foods tend to be less expensive, more shelf-stable, and more accessible to people living in both urban and rural food deserts.

I am also a foster mother and have received extensive training in parenting children who have lived through trauma and neglect. For children who have endured food scarcity and deprivation, hoarding food and overeating are expected responses.

But the pathways to abnormal weight gain are myriad and expand beyond binge eating or numbing with food. ACE are particularly troubling because they affect developing brains and the neuroendocrine system; they alter epigenetics and cause heritable changes. Structural brain differences have been evident in the frontopolar cortex, which is linked to centers in the hypothalamus that control appetite. And increased stress raises cortisol release, increases insulin resistance, and alters satiety.
 

Shifting our approach to treatment

The significant cost of ACE is enormous and affects us all. Health professionals in pediatrics must understand these connections to effectively counsel children and their families dealing with obesity. Handing someone a diet plan and lecturing them about weight loss is never effective, but this common tactic is especially cruel if we do not assess for and address underlying pain. Obviously, blame and shame are ineffective motivators for lifestyle change in any circumstance, but these tactics may be especially harmful in the light of childhood trauma.

Screening for ACE is important in every aspect of pediatric care. The presence of obesity, however, should remind us to be more sensitive to the possibility of causative trauma. Clinicians for adults are not off the hook either. Fully 60% of adults suffered ACE and are dealing with the aftermath.

To improve health outcomes across the board, we must screen for trauma and become educated on trauma-informed care. Perhaps the most important first referral for a child suffering ACE and obesity is to a trained counselor or a social worker. Shepherding children through trauma will be more effective for attaining healthy weight than any remedy I can prescribe as an endocrinologist. Furthermore, this is our necessary role as healers. More than ever, we need to approach chronic diseases, including obesity, with the utmost compassion.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Clinicians in pediatrics have noticed a troubling pattern emerge during the pandemic, something that is darkly referred to as “the COVID 19,” or the 19 or more pounds that many of our patients have gained in the past year. This phenomenon has underscored many maxims in pediatric weight management: Mainly that frequent snacking, decreased physical activity, and less parental supervision lead to increased weight gain. But could we be missing another lesson this trend is teaching us? What about the relationship between catastrophe and childhood obesity?

Beyond the increased weight gain with lockdowns, I have observed other evidence in my own practice that childhood trauma or adverse experiences increase obesity. Our electronic medical record system gives an alert when a chart with sensitive information is accessed. One example might be if the patient had been seen at a clinic for children who have been abused. I am heartbroken at how often this happens. Academically, I understand the dire statistics about the incidence of child abuse, but the frequency at which I see this pattern is jarring.

Over the years, one striking correlation became clear among my patient population: Children with obesity were more likely to have been seen in the child abuse clinic than normal-weight peers.

I am far from the only one to have observed this relationship. Television shows focusing on severe obesity, such as “My 600-Pound Life,” often show trauma as both a cause and effect of severe obesity. This theme also became apparent on the show “The Biggest Loser,” which highlighted the difficulty of achieving and maintaining substantial weight loss. If even Hollywood has noticed this association, shouldn’t we be much farther ahead?
 

Pathways to obesity

Adverse childhood experiences (ACE) encompass various causes of child trauma, including abuse or neglect; poverty; household or neighborhood violence; and death, illness, or incarceration of a parent. A pivotal report in 1998 formalized the suspicion that many of us could plainly see: People who suffered ACE have higher incidence of heart disease, COPD, liver disease, incarceration, and drug abuse. For those with six or more ACE, life expectancy averaged 20 years less than those who had none. More recently, a meta-analysis found an odds ratio of 1.46 for adult obesity with known history of childhood trauma.

As a pediatric endocrinologist living in the poorest state of the country, I have clearly observed the correlation between childhood obesity and poverty. While prior generations may have associated child poverty with malnutrition and starvation, we are seeing in modern times that obesity has become a disease of lack. Calorie-dense and processed foods tend to be less expensive, more shelf-stable, and more accessible to people living in both urban and rural food deserts.

I am also a foster mother and have received extensive training in parenting children who have lived through trauma and neglect. For children who have endured food scarcity and deprivation, hoarding food and overeating are expected responses.

But the pathways to abnormal weight gain are myriad and expand beyond binge eating or numbing with food. ACE are particularly troubling because they affect developing brains and the neuroendocrine system; they alter epigenetics and cause heritable changes. Structural brain differences have been evident in the frontopolar cortex, which is linked to centers in the hypothalamus that control appetite. And increased stress raises cortisol release, increases insulin resistance, and alters satiety.
 

Shifting our approach to treatment

The significant cost of ACE is enormous and affects us all. Health professionals in pediatrics must understand these connections to effectively counsel children and their families dealing with obesity. Handing someone a diet plan and lecturing them about weight loss is never effective, but this common tactic is especially cruel if we do not assess for and address underlying pain. Obviously, blame and shame are ineffective motivators for lifestyle change in any circumstance, but these tactics may be especially harmful in the light of childhood trauma.

Screening for ACE is important in every aspect of pediatric care. The presence of obesity, however, should remind us to be more sensitive to the possibility of causative trauma. Clinicians for adults are not off the hook either. Fully 60% of adults suffered ACE and are dealing with the aftermath.

To improve health outcomes across the board, we must screen for trauma and become educated on trauma-informed care. Perhaps the most important first referral for a child suffering ACE and obesity is to a trained counselor or a social worker. Shepherding children through trauma will be more effective for attaining healthy weight than any remedy I can prescribe as an endocrinologist. Furthermore, this is our necessary role as healers. More than ever, we need to approach chronic diseases, including obesity, with the utmost compassion.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Clinicians in pediatrics have noticed a troubling pattern emerge during the pandemic, something that is darkly referred to as “the COVID 19,” or the 19 or more pounds that many of our patients have gained in the past year. This phenomenon has underscored many maxims in pediatric weight management: Mainly that frequent snacking, decreased physical activity, and less parental supervision lead to increased weight gain. But could we be missing another lesson this trend is teaching us? What about the relationship between catastrophe and childhood obesity?

Beyond the increased weight gain with lockdowns, I have observed other evidence in my own practice that childhood trauma or adverse experiences increase obesity. Our electronic medical record system gives an alert when a chart with sensitive information is accessed. One example might be if the patient had been seen at a clinic for children who have been abused. I am heartbroken at how often this happens. Academically, I understand the dire statistics about the incidence of child abuse, but the frequency at which I see this pattern is jarring.

Over the years, one striking correlation became clear among my patient population: Children with obesity were more likely to have been seen in the child abuse clinic than normal-weight peers.

I am far from the only one to have observed this relationship. Television shows focusing on severe obesity, such as “My 600-Pound Life,” often show trauma as both a cause and effect of severe obesity. This theme also became apparent on the show “The Biggest Loser,” which highlighted the difficulty of achieving and maintaining substantial weight loss. If even Hollywood has noticed this association, shouldn’t we be much farther ahead?
 

Pathways to obesity

Adverse childhood experiences (ACE) encompass various causes of child trauma, including abuse or neglect; poverty; household or neighborhood violence; and death, illness, or incarceration of a parent. A pivotal report in 1998 formalized the suspicion that many of us could plainly see: People who suffered ACE have higher incidence of heart disease, COPD, liver disease, incarceration, and drug abuse. For those with six or more ACE, life expectancy averaged 20 years less than those who had none. More recently, a meta-analysis found an odds ratio of 1.46 for adult obesity with known history of childhood trauma.

As a pediatric endocrinologist living in the poorest state of the country, I have clearly observed the correlation between childhood obesity and poverty. While prior generations may have associated child poverty with malnutrition and starvation, we are seeing in modern times that obesity has become a disease of lack. Calorie-dense and processed foods tend to be less expensive, more shelf-stable, and more accessible to people living in both urban and rural food deserts.

I am also a foster mother and have received extensive training in parenting children who have lived through trauma and neglect. For children who have endured food scarcity and deprivation, hoarding food and overeating are expected responses.

But the pathways to abnormal weight gain are myriad and expand beyond binge eating or numbing with food. ACE are particularly troubling because they affect developing brains and the neuroendocrine system; they alter epigenetics and cause heritable changes. Structural brain differences have been evident in the frontopolar cortex, which is linked to centers in the hypothalamus that control appetite. And increased stress raises cortisol release, increases insulin resistance, and alters satiety.
 

Shifting our approach to treatment

The significant cost of ACE is enormous and affects us all. Health professionals in pediatrics must understand these connections to effectively counsel children and their families dealing with obesity. Handing someone a diet plan and lecturing them about weight loss is never effective, but this common tactic is especially cruel if we do not assess for and address underlying pain. Obviously, blame and shame are ineffective motivators for lifestyle change in any circumstance, but these tactics may be especially harmful in the light of childhood trauma.

Screening for ACE is important in every aspect of pediatric care. The presence of obesity, however, should remind us to be more sensitive to the possibility of causative trauma. Clinicians for adults are not off the hook either. Fully 60% of adults suffered ACE and are dealing with the aftermath.

To improve health outcomes across the board, we must screen for trauma and become educated on trauma-informed care. Perhaps the most important first referral for a child suffering ACE and obesity is to a trained counselor or a social worker. Shepherding children through trauma will be more effective for attaining healthy weight than any remedy I can prescribe as an endocrinologist. Furthermore, this is our necessary role as healers. More than ever, we need to approach chronic diseases, including obesity, with the utmost compassion.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s likely the United States will see another surge of COVID-19 this winter, warned Christopher Murray, MD, director of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) at the University of Washington in Seattle.

Speaking at the national conference of State of Reform on April 8, Dr. Murray cited the seasonality of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, which wanes in the summer and waxes in the winter. The “optimistic forecast” of IHME, which has modeled the course of the pandemic for the past 13 months, is that daily deaths will rise a bit in the next month, then decline from May through August, he said.

“Summer should be fairly quiet in terms of COVID, if vaccinations rise and people don’t stop wearing masks,” Dr. Murray said.

But he added that “a considerable surge will occur over next winter,” because the new variants are more transmissible, and people will likely relax social distancing and mask wearing. The IHME predicts that the percentage of Americans who usually don masks will decline from 73% today to 21% by Aug. 1.

With a rapid decline in mask use and a rise in mobility, there will still be more than 1,000 deaths each day by July 1, Dr. Murray said. In a forecast released the day after Dr. Murray spoke, the IHME predicted that by Aug. 1, there will be a total of 618,523 U.S. deaths from COVID-19. Deaths could be as high as 696,651 if mobility among the vaccinated returns to prepandemic levels, the institute forecasts.

Based on cell phone data, Dr. Murray said, the amount of mobility in the United States has already risen to the level of March 2020, when the pandemic was just getting underway.
 

Decreased infections

If there’s one piece of good news in the latest IHME report, it’s that the estimated number of people infected (including those not tested) will drop from 111,581 today to a projected 17,502 on Aug. 1. But in a worst-case scenario, with sharply higher mobility among vaccinated people, the case count on that date would only fall to 73,842.

The SARS-CoV-2 variants are another factor of concern. Dr. Murray distinguished between variants like the one first identified in the U.K. (B.1.1.7) and other “escape variants.”

B.1.1.7, which is now the dominant strain in the United States, increases transmission but doesn’t necessarily escape the immune system or vaccines, he explained.

In contrast, if someone is infected with a variant such as the South African or the Brazilian mutations, he said, a previous COVID-19 infection might not protect the person, and vaccines are less effective against those variants.

Cross-variant immunity may range from 0% to 60% for escape variants, based on the slim amount of data now available, Dr. Murray said. In his view, these variants will be the long-term driver of the pandemic in the United States, while the United Kingdom variant is the short-term driver.

The latest data, he said, show that the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines are 75% effective against the escape variants, with lower efficacy for other vaccines. But booster shots may still be required to protect people against some variants.
 

Human factors

Human behavior will also help determine the course of the pandemic, he noted. Vaccine hesitancy, for example, is still high in the United States.

By the end of May, he predicted, about 180 million people will have received about two doses of vaccine. After that, he said, “vaccination will flatline due to lack of demand.” The two unknowns are how much campaigns to promote vaccination will increase vaccine confidence, and when children will be vaccinated.

In the United States, he said, 69% of adults have been vaccinated or want to get a shot. But that percentage has dropped 5 points since February, and vaccine confidence varies by state.

Dr. Murray emphasized that the winter surge he predicts can be blocked if people change their behaviors. These include a rise in vaccine confidence to 80% and continued mask wearing by most people.

However, if vaccine confidence and mask wearing decline, state governments continue to drop social distancing rules, and the uptake of boosters is low, the winter surge could be more serious, he said.
 

Double surge

Murray also raised the possibility of a double surge of COVID-19 and influenza this winter. Widely expected last winter, this double surge never materialized here or elsewhere, partly because of mask wearing. But Dr. Murray said it could happen this year: History shows that the flu tends to be stronger in years after weak outbreaks.

He advised hospitals to prepare now for whatever might come later this year. Public health authorities, he said, should speed up vaccination, monitor variants closely with additional sequencing, and try to modify behavior in high-risk groups.

Asked to explain the recent surge of COVID-19 cases in Michigan, Dr. Murray attributed it partly to the spread of the B.1.1.7 (U.K.) variant. But he noted that the U.K. variant has expanded even more widely in some other states that haven’t had an explosive surge like Michigan’s.

Moreover, he noted, Michigan doesn’t have low mask use or high mobility. So the upward spiral of COVID-19 infections there is very concerning, he said.

In regard to the role of children as reservoirs of the virus, Dr. Murray pointed out that views on this have changed around the world. For a while, people thought kids didn’t spread COVID-19 very much. That view shifted when U.K. data showed that child transmission of the B.1.1.7 variant increased by half to 9% of contacts in comparison with the original virus strain.

Dutch data, similarly, showed schools contributing to the latest outbreaks, and some European nations have closed schools. In the United States, the trend is to open them.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s likely the United States will see another surge of COVID-19 this winter, warned Christopher Murray, MD, director of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) at the University of Washington in Seattle.

Speaking at the national conference of State of Reform on April 8, Dr. Murray cited the seasonality of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, which wanes in the summer and waxes in the winter. The “optimistic forecast” of IHME, which has modeled the course of the pandemic for the past 13 months, is that daily deaths will rise a bit in the next month, then decline from May through August, he said.

“Summer should be fairly quiet in terms of COVID, if vaccinations rise and people don’t stop wearing masks,” Dr. Murray said.

But he added that “a considerable surge will occur over next winter,” because the new variants are more transmissible, and people will likely relax social distancing and mask wearing. The IHME predicts that the percentage of Americans who usually don masks will decline from 73% today to 21% by Aug. 1.

With a rapid decline in mask use and a rise in mobility, there will still be more than 1,000 deaths each day by July 1, Dr. Murray said. In a forecast released the day after Dr. Murray spoke, the IHME predicted that by Aug. 1, there will be a total of 618,523 U.S. deaths from COVID-19. Deaths could be as high as 696,651 if mobility among the vaccinated returns to prepandemic levels, the institute forecasts.

Based on cell phone data, Dr. Murray said, the amount of mobility in the United States has already risen to the level of March 2020, when the pandemic was just getting underway.
 

Decreased infections

If there’s one piece of good news in the latest IHME report, it’s that the estimated number of people infected (including those not tested) will drop from 111,581 today to a projected 17,502 on Aug. 1. But in a worst-case scenario, with sharply higher mobility among vaccinated people, the case count on that date would only fall to 73,842.

The SARS-CoV-2 variants are another factor of concern. Dr. Murray distinguished between variants like the one first identified in the U.K. (B.1.1.7) and other “escape variants.”

B.1.1.7, which is now the dominant strain in the United States, increases transmission but doesn’t necessarily escape the immune system or vaccines, he explained.

In contrast, if someone is infected with a variant such as the South African or the Brazilian mutations, he said, a previous COVID-19 infection might not protect the person, and vaccines are less effective against those variants.

Cross-variant immunity may range from 0% to 60% for escape variants, based on the slim amount of data now available, Dr. Murray said. In his view, these variants will be the long-term driver of the pandemic in the United States, while the United Kingdom variant is the short-term driver.

The latest data, he said, show that the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines are 75% effective against the escape variants, with lower efficacy for other vaccines. But booster shots may still be required to protect people against some variants.
 

Human factors

Human behavior will also help determine the course of the pandemic, he noted. Vaccine hesitancy, for example, is still high in the United States.

By the end of May, he predicted, about 180 million people will have received about two doses of vaccine. After that, he said, “vaccination will flatline due to lack of demand.” The two unknowns are how much campaigns to promote vaccination will increase vaccine confidence, and when children will be vaccinated.

In the United States, he said, 69% of adults have been vaccinated or want to get a shot. But that percentage has dropped 5 points since February, and vaccine confidence varies by state.

Dr. Murray emphasized that the winter surge he predicts can be blocked if people change their behaviors. These include a rise in vaccine confidence to 80% and continued mask wearing by most people.

However, if vaccine confidence and mask wearing decline, state governments continue to drop social distancing rules, and the uptake of boosters is low, the winter surge could be more serious, he said.
 

Double surge

Murray also raised the possibility of a double surge of COVID-19 and influenza this winter. Widely expected last winter, this double surge never materialized here or elsewhere, partly because of mask wearing. But Dr. Murray said it could happen this year: History shows that the flu tends to be stronger in years after weak outbreaks.

He advised hospitals to prepare now for whatever might come later this year. Public health authorities, he said, should speed up vaccination, monitor variants closely with additional sequencing, and try to modify behavior in high-risk groups.

Asked to explain the recent surge of COVID-19 cases in Michigan, Dr. Murray attributed it partly to the spread of the B.1.1.7 (U.K.) variant. But he noted that the U.K. variant has expanded even more widely in some other states that haven’t had an explosive surge like Michigan’s.

Moreover, he noted, Michigan doesn’t have low mask use or high mobility. So the upward spiral of COVID-19 infections there is very concerning, he said.

In regard to the role of children as reservoirs of the virus, Dr. Murray pointed out that views on this have changed around the world. For a while, people thought kids didn’t spread COVID-19 very much. That view shifted when U.K. data showed that child transmission of the B.1.1.7 variant increased by half to 9% of contacts in comparison with the original virus strain.

Dutch data, similarly, showed schools contributing to the latest outbreaks, and some European nations have closed schools. In the United States, the trend is to open them.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

It’s likely the United States will see another surge of COVID-19 this winter, warned Christopher Murray, MD, director of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) at the University of Washington in Seattle.

Speaking at the national conference of State of Reform on April 8, Dr. Murray cited the seasonality of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, which wanes in the summer and waxes in the winter. The “optimistic forecast” of IHME, which has modeled the course of the pandemic for the past 13 months, is that daily deaths will rise a bit in the next month, then decline from May through August, he said.

“Summer should be fairly quiet in terms of COVID, if vaccinations rise and people don’t stop wearing masks,” Dr. Murray said.

But he added that “a considerable surge will occur over next winter,” because the new variants are more transmissible, and people will likely relax social distancing and mask wearing. The IHME predicts that the percentage of Americans who usually don masks will decline from 73% today to 21% by Aug. 1.

With a rapid decline in mask use and a rise in mobility, there will still be more than 1,000 deaths each day by July 1, Dr. Murray said. In a forecast released the day after Dr. Murray spoke, the IHME predicted that by Aug. 1, there will be a total of 618,523 U.S. deaths from COVID-19. Deaths could be as high as 696,651 if mobility among the vaccinated returns to prepandemic levels, the institute forecasts.

Based on cell phone data, Dr. Murray said, the amount of mobility in the United States has already risen to the level of March 2020, when the pandemic was just getting underway.
 

Decreased infections

If there’s one piece of good news in the latest IHME report, it’s that the estimated number of people infected (including those not tested) will drop from 111,581 today to a projected 17,502 on Aug. 1. But in a worst-case scenario, with sharply higher mobility among vaccinated people, the case count on that date would only fall to 73,842.

The SARS-CoV-2 variants are another factor of concern. Dr. Murray distinguished between variants like the one first identified in the U.K. (B.1.1.7) and other “escape variants.”

B.1.1.7, which is now the dominant strain in the United States, increases transmission but doesn’t necessarily escape the immune system or vaccines, he explained.

In contrast, if someone is infected with a variant such as the South African or the Brazilian mutations, he said, a previous COVID-19 infection might not protect the person, and vaccines are less effective against those variants.

Cross-variant immunity may range from 0% to 60% for escape variants, based on the slim amount of data now available, Dr. Murray said. In his view, these variants will be the long-term driver of the pandemic in the United States, while the United Kingdom variant is the short-term driver.

The latest data, he said, show that the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines are 75% effective against the escape variants, with lower efficacy for other vaccines. But booster shots may still be required to protect people against some variants.
 

Human factors

Human behavior will also help determine the course of the pandemic, he noted. Vaccine hesitancy, for example, is still high in the United States.

By the end of May, he predicted, about 180 million people will have received about two doses of vaccine. After that, he said, “vaccination will flatline due to lack of demand.” The two unknowns are how much campaigns to promote vaccination will increase vaccine confidence, and when children will be vaccinated.

In the United States, he said, 69% of adults have been vaccinated or want to get a shot. But that percentage has dropped 5 points since February, and vaccine confidence varies by state.

Dr. Murray emphasized that the winter surge he predicts can be blocked if people change their behaviors. These include a rise in vaccine confidence to 80% and continued mask wearing by most people.

However, if vaccine confidence and mask wearing decline, state governments continue to drop social distancing rules, and the uptake of boosters is low, the winter surge could be more serious, he said.
 

Double surge

Murray also raised the possibility of a double surge of COVID-19 and influenza this winter. Widely expected last winter, this double surge never materialized here or elsewhere, partly because of mask wearing. But Dr. Murray said it could happen this year: History shows that the flu tends to be stronger in years after weak outbreaks.

He advised hospitals to prepare now for whatever might come later this year. Public health authorities, he said, should speed up vaccination, monitor variants closely with additional sequencing, and try to modify behavior in high-risk groups.

Asked to explain the recent surge of COVID-19 cases in Michigan, Dr. Murray attributed it partly to the spread of the B.1.1.7 (U.K.) variant. But he noted that the U.K. variant has expanded even more widely in some other states that haven’t had an explosive surge like Michigan’s.

Moreover, he noted, Michigan doesn’t have low mask use or high mobility. So the upward spiral of COVID-19 infections there is very concerning, he said.

In regard to the role of children as reservoirs of the virus, Dr. Murray pointed out that views on this have changed around the world. For a while, people thought kids didn’t spread COVID-19 very much. That view shifted when U.K. data showed that child transmission of the B.1.1.7 variant increased by half to 9% of contacts in comparison with the original virus strain.

Dutch data, similarly, showed schools contributing to the latest outbreaks, and some European nations have closed schools. In the United States, the trend is to open them.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Remote cardiology clinic visits during COVID-19 were used more often by certain traditionally underserved patient groups, but were also associated with less frequent testing and prescribing, new research shows.

“The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an unprecedented shift in ambulatory cardiovascular care from in-person to remote visits,” lead author Neal Yuan, MD, a cardiology fellow at the Smidt Heart Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

Their findings were published online April 5 in JAMA Network Open.

“We wanted to explore whether the transition to remote visits was associated with disparities in how patients accessed care, and also how this transition affected diagnostic test ordering and medication prescribing,” Dr. Yuan said.

The researchers used electronic health records data for all ambulatory cardiology visits at an urban, multisite health system in Los Angeles County during two periods: April 1 to Dec. 31, 2019, the pre-COVID era; and April 1 to Dec. 31, 2020, the COVID era.

The investigators compared patient characteristics and frequencies of medication ordering and cardiology-specific testing across four visit types: pre-COVID in person, used as reference; COVID-era in person; COVID-era video; and COVID-era telephone.

The study looked at 176,781 ambulatory cardiology visits. Of these visits, 87,182 were conducted in person in the pre-COVID period; 74,498 were conducted in person in the COVID era; 4,720 were COVID-era video visits; and 10,381 were COVID-era telephone visits.

In the study cohort, 79,572 patients (45.0%) were female, 127,080 patients (71.9%) were non-Hispanic White, and the mean age was 68.1 years (standard deviation, 17.0).

Patients accessing COVID-era remote visits were more likely to be Asian, Black, or Hispanic, to have private insurance, and to have cardiovascular comorbidities, such as hypertension and heart failure.

Also, patients whose visits were conducted by video were significantly younger than patients whose visits were conducted in person or by telephone (P < .001).

In addition, the study found that clinicians ordered fewer diagnostic tests, such as electrocardiograms and echocardiograms, and were less likely to order any medication, in the pre-COVID era than during the COVID era.

“If you don’t have a patient in front of you, it’s much more difficult to get a physical exam or obtain reliable vital signs,” said Dr. Yuan. Communication can sometimes be difficult, often because of technical issues, like a bad connection. “You might be more reticent to get testing or to prescribe medications if you don’t feel confident knowing what the patient’s vital signs are.”

In addition, he added, “a lot of medications used in the cardiology setting require monitoring patients’ kidney function and electrolytes, and if you can’t do that reliably, you might be more cautious about prescribing those types of medications.”
 

An eye-opening study

Cardiologist Nieca Goldberg, MD, medical director of the New York University Langone womens’ heart program and spokesperson for the American Heart Association, recounted her experience with telemedicine at the height of the pandemic in New York, when everything, including medical outpatient offices, had to close.

“We were experienced with telemedicine because we had started a virtual urgent care program well ahead of the pandemic,” she said. “We started using that to screen people with potential COVID symptoms so that they wouldn’t have to come into the hospital, the medical center, or to the offices and expose people. We learned that it was great to have the telemedicine option from the infectious disease standpoint, and I did visits like that for my own patient population.”

An equally if not more important finding from the study is the fact that telemedicine increased access to care among traditionally underserved demographics, she said.

“This is eye-opening, that you can actually improve access to care by doing telemedicine visits. It was really important to see that telemedicine has added benefit to the way we can see people in the health care system.”

Telemedicine visits had a positive impact at a time when people were isolated at home, Dr. Goldberg said.

“It was a way for them to connect with their doctor and in some ways it was more personal,” she added. “I actually got to meet some of my patients’ family members. It was like making a remote house call.”

Stable cardiology patients can take their blood pressure at home, weigh themselves, and take their own pulse to give an excellent set of vital signs that will indicate how they are doing, said Dr. Goldberg.

“During a remote visit, we can talk to the patient and notice whether or not they are short of breath or coughing, but we can’t listen to their heart or do an EKG or any of the traditional cardiac testing. Still, for someone who is not having symptoms and is able to reliably monitor their blood pressure and weight, a remote visit is sufficient to give you a good sense of how that patient is doing,” she said. “We can talk to them about their medications, any potential side effects, and we can use their blood pressure information to adjust their medications.”

Many patients are becoming more savvy about using tech gadgets and devices to monitor their health.

“Some of my patients were using Apple watches and the Kardia app to address their heart rate. Many had purchased inexpensive pulse oximeters to check their oxygen during the pandemic, and that also reads the pulse,” Dr. Goldberg said.

In-person visits were reserved for symptomatic cardiac patients, she explained.

“Initially during the pandemic, we did mostly telemedicine visits and we organized the office so that each cardiologist would come in 1 day a week to take care of symptomatic cardiac patients. In that way, we were able to socially distance – they provided us with [personal protective equipment]; at NYU there was no problem with that – and nobody waited in the waiting room. To this day, office issues are more efficient and people are not waiting in the waiting room,” she added. “Telemedicine improves access to health care in populations where such access is limited.”

Dr. Yuan’s research is supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Goldberg reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Remote cardiology clinic visits during COVID-19 were used more often by certain traditionally underserved patient groups, but were also associated with less frequent testing and prescribing, new research shows.

“The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an unprecedented shift in ambulatory cardiovascular care from in-person to remote visits,” lead author Neal Yuan, MD, a cardiology fellow at the Smidt Heart Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

Their findings were published online April 5 in JAMA Network Open.

“We wanted to explore whether the transition to remote visits was associated with disparities in how patients accessed care, and also how this transition affected diagnostic test ordering and medication prescribing,” Dr. Yuan said.

The researchers used electronic health records data for all ambulatory cardiology visits at an urban, multisite health system in Los Angeles County during two periods: April 1 to Dec. 31, 2019, the pre-COVID era; and April 1 to Dec. 31, 2020, the COVID era.

The investigators compared patient characteristics and frequencies of medication ordering and cardiology-specific testing across four visit types: pre-COVID in person, used as reference; COVID-era in person; COVID-era video; and COVID-era telephone.

The study looked at 176,781 ambulatory cardiology visits. Of these visits, 87,182 were conducted in person in the pre-COVID period; 74,498 were conducted in person in the COVID era; 4,720 were COVID-era video visits; and 10,381 were COVID-era telephone visits.

In the study cohort, 79,572 patients (45.0%) were female, 127,080 patients (71.9%) were non-Hispanic White, and the mean age was 68.1 years (standard deviation, 17.0).

Patients accessing COVID-era remote visits were more likely to be Asian, Black, or Hispanic, to have private insurance, and to have cardiovascular comorbidities, such as hypertension and heart failure.

Also, patients whose visits were conducted by video were significantly younger than patients whose visits were conducted in person or by telephone (P < .001).

In addition, the study found that clinicians ordered fewer diagnostic tests, such as electrocardiograms and echocardiograms, and were less likely to order any medication, in the pre-COVID era than during the COVID era.

“If you don’t have a patient in front of you, it’s much more difficult to get a physical exam or obtain reliable vital signs,” said Dr. Yuan. Communication can sometimes be difficult, often because of technical issues, like a bad connection. “You might be more reticent to get testing or to prescribe medications if you don’t feel confident knowing what the patient’s vital signs are.”

In addition, he added, “a lot of medications used in the cardiology setting require monitoring patients’ kidney function and electrolytes, and if you can’t do that reliably, you might be more cautious about prescribing those types of medications.”
 

An eye-opening study

Cardiologist Nieca Goldberg, MD, medical director of the New York University Langone womens’ heart program and spokesperson for the American Heart Association, recounted her experience with telemedicine at the height of the pandemic in New York, when everything, including medical outpatient offices, had to close.

“We were experienced with telemedicine because we had started a virtual urgent care program well ahead of the pandemic,” she said. “We started using that to screen people with potential COVID symptoms so that they wouldn’t have to come into the hospital, the medical center, or to the offices and expose people. We learned that it was great to have the telemedicine option from the infectious disease standpoint, and I did visits like that for my own patient population.”

An equally if not more important finding from the study is the fact that telemedicine increased access to care among traditionally underserved demographics, she said.

“This is eye-opening, that you can actually improve access to care by doing telemedicine visits. It was really important to see that telemedicine has added benefit to the way we can see people in the health care system.”

Telemedicine visits had a positive impact at a time when people were isolated at home, Dr. Goldberg said.

“It was a way for them to connect with their doctor and in some ways it was more personal,” she added. “I actually got to meet some of my patients’ family members. It was like making a remote house call.”

Stable cardiology patients can take their blood pressure at home, weigh themselves, and take their own pulse to give an excellent set of vital signs that will indicate how they are doing, said Dr. Goldberg.

“During a remote visit, we can talk to the patient and notice whether or not they are short of breath or coughing, but we can’t listen to their heart or do an EKG or any of the traditional cardiac testing. Still, for someone who is not having symptoms and is able to reliably monitor their blood pressure and weight, a remote visit is sufficient to give you a good sense of how that patient is doing,” she said. “We can talk to them about their medications, any potential side effects, and we can use their blood pressure information to adjust their medications.”

Many patients are becoming more savvy about using tech gadgets and devices to monitor their health.

“Some of my patients were using Apple watches and the Kardia app to address their heart rate. Many had purchased inexpensive pulse oximeters to check their oxygen during the pandemic, and that also reads the pulse,” Dr. Goldberg said.

In-person visits were reserved for symptomatic cardiac patients, she explained.

“Initially during the pandemic, we did mostly telemedicine visits and we organized the office so that each cardiologist would come in 1 day a week to take care of symptomatic cardiac patients. In that way, we were able to socially distance – they provided us with [personal protective equipment]; at NYU there was no problem with that – and nobody waited in the waiting room. To this day, office issues are more efficient and people are not waiting in the waiting room,” she added. “Telemedicine improves access to health care in populations where such access is limited.”

Dr. Yuan’s research is supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Goldberg reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Remote cardiology clinic visits during COVID-19 were used more often by certain traditionally underserved patient groups, but were also associated with less frequent testing and prescribing, new research shows.

“The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an unprecedented shift in ambulatory cardiovascular care from in-person to remote visits,” lead author Neal Yuan, MD, a cardiology fellow at the Smidt Heart Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

Their findings were published online April 5 in JAMA Network Open.

“We wanted to explore whether the transition to remote visits was associated with disparities in how patients accessed care, and also how this transition affected diagnostic test ordering and medication prescribing,” Dr. Yuan said.

The researchers used electronic health records data for all ambulatory cardiology visits at an urban, multisite health system in Los Angeles County during two periods: April 1 to Dec. 31, 2019, the pre-COVID era; and April 1 to Dec. 31, 2020, the COVID era.

The investigators compared patient characteristics and frequencies of medication ordering and cardiology-specific testing across four visit types: pre-COVID in person, used as reference; COVID-era in person; COVID-era video; and COVID-era telephone.

The study looked at 176,781 ambulatory cardiology visits. Of these visits, 87,182 were conducted in person in the pre-COVID period; 74,498 were conducted in person in the COVID era; 4,720 were COVID-era video visits; and 10,381 were COVID-era telephone visits.

In the study cohort, 79,572 patients (45.0%) were female, 127,080 patients (71.9%) were non-Hispanic White, and the mean age was 68.1 years (standard deviation, 17.0).

Patients accessing COVID-era remote visits were more likely to be Asian, Black, or Hispanic, to have private insurance, and to have cardiovascular comorbidities, such as hypertension and heart failure.

Also, patients whose visits were conducted by video were significantly younger than patients whose visits were conducted in person or by telephone (P < .001).

In addition, the study found that clinicians ordered fewer diagnostic tests, such as electrocardiograms and echocardiograms, and were less likely to order any medication, in the pre-COVID era than during the COVID era.

“If you don’t have a patient in front of you, it’s much more difficult to get a physical exam or obtain reliable vital signs,” said Dr. Yuan. Communication can sometimes be difficult, often because of technical issues, like a bad connection. “You might be more reticent to get testing or to prescribe medications if you don’t feel confident knowing what the patient’s vital signs are.”

In addition, he added, “a lot of medications used in the cardiology setting require monitoring patients’ kidney function and electrolytes, and if you can’t do that reliably, you might be more cautious about prescribing those types of medications.”
 

An eye-opening study

Cardiologist Nieca Goldberg, MD, medical director of the New York University Langone womens’ heart program and spokesperson for the American Heart Association, recounted her experience with telemedicine at the height of the pandemic in New York, when everything, including medical outpatient offices, had to close.

“We were experienced with telemedicine because we had started a virtual urgent care program well ahead of the pandemic,” she said. “We started using that to screen people with potential COVID symptoms so that they wouldn’t have to come into the hospital, the medical center, or to the offices and expose people. We learned that it was great to have the telemedicine option from the infectious disease standpoint, and I did visits like that for my own patient population.”

An equally if not more important finding from the study is the fact that telemedicine increased access to care among traditionally underserved demographics, she said.

“This is eye-opening, that you can actually improve access to care by doing telemedicine visits. It was really important to see that telemedicine has added benefit to the way we can see people in the health care system.”

Telemedicine visits had a positive impact at a time when people were isolated at home, Dr. Goldberg said.

“It was a way for them to connect with their doctor and in some ways it was more personal,” she added. “I actually got to meet some of my patients’ family members. It was like making a remote house call.”

Stable cardiology patients can take their blood pressure at home, weigh themselves, and take their own pulse to give an excellent set of vital signs that will indicate how they are doing, said Dr. Goldberg.

“During a remote visit, we can talk to the patient and notice whether or not they are short of breath or coughing, but we can’t listen to their heart or do an EKG or any of the traditional cardiac testing. Still, for someone who is not having symptoms and is able to reliably monitor their blood pressure and weight, a remote visit is sufficient to give you a good sense of how that patient is doing,” she said. “We can talk to them about their medications, any potential side effects, and we can use their blood pressure information to adjust their medications.”

Many patients are becoming more savvy about using tech gadgets and devices to monitor their health.

“Some of my patients were using Apple watches and the Kardia app to address their heart rate. Many had purchased inexpensive pulse oximeters to check their oxygen during the pandemic, and that also reads the pulse,” Dr. Goldberg said.

In-person visits were reserved for symptomatic cardiac patients, she explained.

“Initially during the pandemic, we did mostly telemedicine visits and we organized the office so that each cardiologist would come in 1 day a week to take care of symptomatic cardiac patients. In that way, we were able to socially distance – they provided us with [personal protective equipment]; at NYU there was no problem with that – and nobody waited in the waiting room. To this day, office issues are more efficient and people are not waiting in the waiting room,” she added. “Telemedicine improves access to health care in populations where such access is limited.”

Dr. Yuan’s research is supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Goldberg reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A novel therapy combining platelet-rich plasma (PRP) with follicle-stimulating hormone that is injected directly into the ovaries has the potential to restore ovarian function for women who experience early menopause, possibly allowing for pregnancy without the need for donor eggs.

“The resumption of ovarian function in our participants means women with early menopause could have the opportunity to pursue pregnancy through IVF [in vitro fertilization] using their own eggs,” the authors of the groundbreaking pilot study report.

In the small study, published online March 29 in Menopause, menstruation resumed within a mean of about 5 weeks for 11 of 12 patients with early menopause who were treated with the technique. One patient achieved a clinical pregnancy.

In commenting on the study, Stephanie S. Faubion, MD, medical director of the North American Menopause Society, was cautious in her interpretation, noting the need for more research in larger samples.

“Any pregnancy that results from a regenerative therapy is novel,” she told this news organization. “Still, we are a long way away from this being a standard therapy for women with premature ovarian insufficiency.”
 

Pilot study: Platelet-rich plasma combination with FSH

Early menopause is the cessation of ovarian function at or before the age of 45 years. It is estimated that 12.2% of women experience early menopause. For these women, currently, the only chance of becoming pregnant is with donor eggs.

PRP, an autologous plasma preparation containing more than 10 times the concentration of growth factors and active metabolites than normal plasma, has recently been shown to have the potential to restore the menstrual cycles in perimenopausal women, allowing IVF. It has also been shown to benefit women with premature ovarian insufficiency (POI). However, there have been few reports of pregnancies or live births.

Chao Chin Hsu, MD, PhD, of the National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, and colleagues investigated whether the combination of the activated PRP treatment with gondatrophins such as FSH could provide a more robust effect so as to sufficiently stimulate follicles. They used the intraovarian injection of the combination to treat a 38-year-old woman with POI.

The effort was successful, and the woman gave birth to healthy twins.

To further evaluate the approach, the authors conducted a pilot study involving 12 women with early menopause (mean age, 44.4 years) between November 2018 and November 2019.

The women received intraovarian injection with PRP prepared from 40 mL of autologous peripheral blood combined with recombinant FSH.

Following the treatment, 11 of the 12 women experienced resumption of menstruation within a mean of 37 days. For seven patients, menstruation resumed within a month; for three, it resumed within about 2 months; and for one, it resumed after approximately 3 months.

Of note, the menstrual cycles were mostly irregular, with an interval of about 45.6 days.

The women’s average serum FSH level dropped significantly from 70.5 IU/L at baseline to 26.2 IU/L within days of treatment, as did the average luteinizing hormone level (34.8 before and 14.3 IU/L after treatment), indicative of improved ovary function.

For six participants, 10 oocyte retrieval procedures were performed after a mean of about 2 months. Thirteen mature eggs were retrieved, and fertilization via intracytoplasmic sperm injection was attempted, resulting in 10 fertilized oocytes.

Cleavage-stage embryos were transferred into two of the participants. One achieved a clinical pregnancy, defined as a pregnancy that was confirmed by ultrasound and by the presence of a fetal heartbeat. The pregnancy ended in miscarriage at 7 weeks’ gestation.

The length of controlled ovarian stimulation necessary for follicle growth ranged from 8 to 14 days, which the authors note is similar to that seen with women of normal reproductive age.

“Although the use of PRP in reproductive medicine is considered experimental, we demonstrated the restoration of ovarian function in early menopausal women who adopted whole dimension subcortical ovarian injection of PRP/gonadotropin,” the authors write.

“Most remarkably, an early menopausal woman achieved pregnancy after the treatment followed by IVF with her mature ovulating follicle,” they report.
 

Mechanisms, caveats

The mechanisms thought to underlie the success of the approach include increases in ovarian vascularization and stromal cell proliferation and reductions in oxidative stress and cell death in ovaries, the authors explain.

Key caveats with the treatment include the fact that anesthesia and laparoscopy are required, and precise administration is required at 15 injection sites in 1-2 mm of the ovarian subcortical area, which can be difficult to achieve, Dr. Hsu said in an interview.

“If a new instrument could be developed in which physicians can carry out this treatment through a vaginal approach, like the transvaginal retrieval of eggs in IVF treatments,” the approach could become more acceptable, Dr. Hsu added.

The authors call for studies with larger sample sizes and say it will also be interesting to determine effects in different groups: For example, women with cancer who have undergone chemotherapy.

Dr. Faubion, who is director of the Mayo Clinic Women’s Health, Rochester, Minn., says the causes of early menopause could be important in determining the treatment’s efficacy.

“[The therapy’s] success may depend on the reason the woman experienced early menopause: For instance, due to chemotherapy, radiation, virus, autoimmune disease, genetic mutation, or other cause,” she said.

She also noted that cost could be an important factor.

“I don’t see a cost estimate, but it will be substantial,” she said. “So, even if the success rate improves as this technique is further studied, cost and the invasive nature of the treatment may prove to be substantial barriers to this therapy becoming mainstream,” she said.

The authors and Dr. Faubion have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A novel therapy combining platelet-rich plasma (PRP) with follicle-stimulating hormone that is injected directly into the ovaries has the potential to restore ovarian function for women who experience early menopause, possibly allowing for pregnancy without the need for donor eggs.

“The resumption of ovarian function in our participants means women with early menopause could have the opportunity to pursue pregnancy through IVF [in vitro fertilization] using their own eggs,” the authors of the groundbreaking pilot study report.

In the small study, published online March 29 in Menopause, menstruation resumed within a mean of about 5 weeks for 11 of 12 patients with early menopause who were treated with the technique. One patient achieved a clinical pregnancy.

In commenting on the study, Stephanie S. Faubion, MD, medical director of the North American Menopause Society, was cautious in her interpretation, noting the need for more research in larger samples.

“Any pregnancy that results from a regenerative therapy is novel,” she told this news organization. “Still, we are a long way away from this being a standard therapy for women with premature ovarian insufficiency.”
 

Pilot study: Platelet-rich plasma combination with FSH

Early menopause is the cessation of ovarian function at or before the age of 45 years. It is estimated that 12.2% of women experience early menopause. For these women, currently, the only chance of becoming pregnant is with donor eggs.

PRP, an autologous plasma preparation containing more than 10 times the concentration of growth factors and active metabolites than normal plasma, has recently been shown to have the potential to restore the menstrual cycles in perimenopausal women, allowing IVF. It has also been shown to benefit women with premature ovarian insufficiency (POI). However, there have been few reports of pregnancies or live births.

Chao Chin Hsu, MD, PhD, of the National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, and colleagues investigated whether the combination of the activated PRP treatment with gondatrophins such as FSH could provide a more robust effect so as to sufficiently stimulate follicles. They used the intraovarian injection of the combination to treat a 38-year-old woman with POI.

The effort was successful, and the woman gave birth to healthy twins.

To further evaluate the approach, the authors conducted a pilot study involving 12 women with early menopause (mean age, 44.4 years) between November 2018 and November 2019.

The women received intraovarian injection with PRP prepared from 40 mL of autologous peripheral blood combined with recombinant FSH.

Following the treatment, 11 of the 12 women experienced resumption of menstruation within a mean of 37 days. For seven patients, menstruation resumed within a month; for three, it resumed within about 2 months; and for one, it resumed after approximately 3 months.

Of note, the menstrual cycles were mostly irregular, with an interval of about 45.6 days.

The women’s average serum FSH level dropped significantly from 70.5 IU/L at baseline to 26.2 IU/L within days of treatment, as did the average luteinizing hormone level (34.8 before and 14.3 IU/L after treatment), indicative of improved ovary function.

For six participants, 10 oocyte retrieval procedures were performed after a mean of about 2 months. Thirteen mature eggs were retrieved, and fertilization via intracytoplasmic sperm injection was attempted, resulting in 10 fertilized oocytes.

Cleavage-stage embryos were transferred into two of the participants. One achieved a clinical pregnancy, defined as a pregnancy that was confirmed by ultrasound and by the presence of a fetal heartbeat. The pregnancy ended in miscarriage at 7 weeks’ gestation.

The length of controlled ovarian stimulation necessary for follicle growth ranged from 8 to 14 days, which the authors note is similar to that seen with women of normal reproductive age.

“Although the use of PRP in reproductive medicine is considered experimental, we demonstrated the restoration of ovarian function in early menopausal women who adopted whole dimension subcortical ovarian injection of PRP/gonadotropin,” the authors write.

“Most remarkably, an early menopausal woman achieved pregnancy after the treatment followed by IVF with her mature ovulating follicle,” they report.
 

Mechanisms, caveats

The mechanisms thought to underlie the success of the approach include increases in ovarian vascularization and stromal cell proliferation and reductions in oxidative stress and cell death in ovaries, the authors explain.

Key caveats with the treatment include the fact that anesthesia and laparoscopy are required, and precise administration is required at 15 injection sites in 1-2 mm of the ovarian subcortical area, which can be difficult to achieve, Dr. Hsu said in an interview.

“If a new instrument could be developed in which physicians can carry out this treatment through a vaginal approach, like the transvaginal retrieval of eggs in IVF treatments,” the approach could become more acceptable, Dr. Hsu added.

The authors call for studies with larger sample sizes and say it will also be interesting to determine effects in different groups: For example, women with cancer who have undergone chemotherapy.

Dr. Faubion, who is director of the Mayo Clinic Women’s Health, Rochester, Minn., says the causes of early menopause could be important in determining the treatment’s efficacy.

“[The therapy’s] success may depend on the reason the woman experienced early menopause: For instance, due to chemotherapy, radiation, virus, autoimmune disease, genetic mutation, or other cause,” she said.

She also noted that cost could be an important factor.

“I don’t see a cost estimate, but it will be substantial,” she said. “So, even if the success rate improves as this technique is further studied, cost and the invasive nature of the treatment may prove to be substantial barriers to this therapy becoming mainstream,” she said.

The authors and Dr. Faubion have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A novel therapy combining platelet-rich plasma (PRP) with follicle-stimulating hormone that is injected directly into the ovaries has the potential to restore ovarian function for women who experience early menopause, possibly allowing for pregnancy without the need for donor eggs.

“The resumption of ovarian function in our participants means women with early menopause could have the opportunity to pursue pregnancy through IVF [in vitro fertilization] using their own eggs,” the authors of the groundbreaking pilot study report.

In the small study, published online March 29 in Menopause, menstruation resumed within a mean of about 5 weeks for 11 of 12 patients with early menopause who were treated with the technique. One patient achieved a clinical pregnancy.

In commenting on the study, Stephanie S. Faubion, MD, medical director of the North American Menopause Society, was cautious in her interpretation, noting the need for more research in larger samples.

“Any pregnancy that results from a regenerative therapy is novel,” she told this news organization. “Still, we are a long way away from this being a standard therapy for women with premature ovarian insufficiency.”
 

Pilot study: Platelet-rich plasma combination with FSH

Early menopause is the cessation of ovarian function at or before the age of 45 years. It is estimated that 12.2% of women experience early menopause. For these women, currently, the only chance of becoming pregnant is with donor eggs.

PRP, an autologous plasma preparation containing more than 10 times the concentration of growth factors and active metabolites than normal plasma, has recently been shown to have the potential to restore the menstrual cycles in perimenopausal women, allowing IVF. It has also been shown to benefit women with premature ovarian insufficiency (POI). However, there have been few reports of pregnancies or live births.

Chao Chin Hsu, MD, PhD, of the National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, and colleagues investigated whether the combination of the activated PRP treatment with gondatrophins such as FSH could provide a more robust effect so as to sufficiently stimulate follicles. They used the intraovarian injection of the combination to treat a 38-year-old woman with POI.

The effort was successful, and the woman gave birth to healthy twins.

To further evaluate the approach, the authors conducted a pilot study involving 12 women with early menopause (mean age, 44.4 years) between November 2018 and November 2019.

The women received intraovarian injection with PRP prepared from 40 mL of autologous peripheral blood combined with recombinant FSH.

Following the treatment, 11 of the 12 women experienced resumption of menstruation within a mean of 37 days. For seven patients, menstruation resumed within a month; for three, it resumed within about 2 months; and for one, it resumed after approximately 3 months.

Of note, the menstrual cycles were mostly irregular, with an interval of about 45.6 days.

The women’s average serum FSH level dropped significantly from 70.5 IU/L at baseline to 26.2 IU/L within days of treatment, as did the average luteinizing hormone level (34.8 before and 14.3 IU/L after treatment), indicative of improved ovary function.

For six participants, 10 oocyte retrieval procedures were performed after a mean of about 2 months. Thirteen mature eggs were retrieved, and fertilization via intracytoplasmic sperm injection was attempted, resulting in 10 fertilized oocytes.

Cleavage-stage embryos were transferred into two of the participants. One achieved a clinical pregnancy, defined as a pregnancy that was confirmed by ultrasound and by the presence of a fetal heartbeat. The pregnancy ended in miscarriage at 7 weeks’ gestation.

The length of controlled ovarian stimulation necessary for follicle growth ranged from 8 to 14 days, which the authors note is similar to that seen with women of normal reproductive age.

“Although the use of PRP in reproductive medicine is considered experimental, we demonstrated the restoration of ovarian function in early menopausal women who adopted whole dimension subcortical ovarian injection of PRP/gonadotropin,” the authors write.

“Most remarkably, an early menopausal woman achieved pregnancy after the treatment followed by IVF with her mature ovulating follicle,” they report.
 

Mechanisms, caveats

The mechanisms thought to underlie the success of the approach include increases in ovarian vascularization and stromal cell proliferation and reductions in oxidative stress and cell death in ovaries, the authors explain.

Key caveats with the treatment include the fact that anesthesia and laparoscopy are required, and precise administration is required at 15 injection sites in 1-2 mm of the ovarian subcortical area, which can be difficult to achieve, Dr. Hsu said in an interview.

“If a new instrument could be developed in which physicians can carry out this treatment through a vaginal approach, like the transvaginal retrieval of eggs in IVF treatments,” the approach could become more acceptable, Dr. Hsu added.

The authors call for studies with larger sample sizes and say it will also be interesting to determine effects in different groups: For example, women with cancer who have undergone chemotherapy.

Dr. Faubion, who is director of the Mayo Clinic Women’s Health, Rochester, Minn., says the causes of early menopause could be important in determining the treatment’s efficacy.

“[The therapy’s] success may depend on the reason the woman experienced early menopause: For instance, due to chemotherapy, radiation, virus, autoimmune disease, genetic mutation, or other cause,” she said.

She also noted that cost could be an important factor.

“I don’t see a cost estimate, but it will be substantial,” she said. “So, even if the success rate improves as this technique is further studied, cost and the invasive nature of the treatment may prove to be substantial barriers to this therapy becoming mainstream,” she said.

The authors and Dr. Faubion have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

This article was updated 4/13/21.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

This article was updated 4/13/21.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

This article was updated 4/13/21.

People who identify as transgender experience many health disparities, in addition to lack of access to quality care. The most commonly cited barrier is the lack of providers who are knowledgeable about transgender health care, according to past surveys.

Even those who do seek care often have unpleasant experiences. A 2015 survey conducted by the National Center for Transgender Equality found that 33% of those who saw a health care provider reported at least one  unfavorable experience related to being transgender, such as being verbally harassed or refused treatment because of their gender identity. In fact, 23% of those surveyed say they did not seek health care they needed in the past year because of fear of being mistreated as a transgender person.

To find out how physicians can provide more compassionate, effective care for this group, this news organization spoke with K. Ashley Brandt, DO, gender-affirming surgeon and obstetrician/gynecologist in West Reading, Penn. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Question: Surveys have shown that many people who identify as transgender will seek only transition care, not primary or preventive care. Why is that?

Dr. Brandt: My answer is multifactorial. Transgender patients do seek primary care – just not as readily. There’s a lot of misconceptions about health care needs for the LGBT community in general. For example, lesbian or bisexual women may be not as well informed about the need for Pap smears compared with their heterosexual counterparts. These misconceptions are further exacerbated in the transgender community.

The fact that a lot of patients seek only transition-related care, but not preventive services, such as primary care and gynecologic care, is also related to fears of discrimination and lack of education of providers. These patients are afraid when they walk into an office that they will be misgendered or their physician won’t be familiar with their health care needs.

What can clinics and clinicians do to create a safe and welcoming environment?

Dr. Brandt: It starts with educating office staff about terminology and gender identities.

A key feature of our EHR is the sexual orientation and gender identity platform, which asks questions about a patient’s gender identity, sexual orientation, sex assigned at birth, and organ inventory. These data are then found in the patient information tab and are just as relevant as their insurance status, age, and date of birth.

There are many ways a doctor’s office can signal to patients that they are inclusive. They can hang LGBTQ-friendly flags or symbols or a sign saying, “We have an anti-discrimination policy” in the waiting room.  A welcoming environment can also be achieved by revising patient questionnaires or forms so that they aren’t gender-specific or binary.

Given that the patient may have limited contact with a primary care clinician, how do you prioritize what you address during the visit?

Dr. Brandt: Similar to cisgender patients, it depends initially on the age of the patient and the reason for the visit. The priorities of an otherwise healthy transgender patient in their 20s are going to be largely the same as for a cisgender patient of the same age. As patients age in the primary care world, you’re addressing more issues, such as colorectal screening, lipid disorders, and mammograms, and that doesn’t change. For the most part, the problems that you address should be specific for that age group.

It becomes more complicated when you add in factors such as hormone therapy and whether patients have had any type of gender-affirming surgery. Those things can change the usual recommendations for screening or risk assessment. We try to figure out what routine health maintenance and cancer screening a patient needs based on age and risk factors, in addition to hormone status and surgical state.

Do you think that many physicians are educated about the care of underserved populations such as transgender patients?

Dr. Brandt: Yes and no. We are definitely getting better at it. For example, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists published a committee opinion highlighting transgender care. So organizations are starting to prioritize these populations and recognize that they are, in fact, underserved and they have special health care needs.

However, the knowledge gaps are still pretty big. I get calls daily from providers asking questions about how to manage patients on hormones, or how to examine a patient who has undergone a vaginoplasty. I hear a lot of horror stories from transgender patients who had their hormones stopped for absurd and medically misinformed reasons.

But I definitely think it’s getting better and it’s being addressed at all levels – the medical school level, the residency level, and the attending level. It just takes time to inform people and for people to get used to the health care needs of these patients.

What should physicians keep in mind when treating patients who identify as transgender?

Dr. Brandt: First and foremost, understanding the terminology and the difference between gender identity, sex, and sexual orientation. Being familiar with that language and being able to speak that language very comfortably and not being awkward about it is a really important thing for primary care physicians and indeed any physician who treats transgender patients.

Physicians should also be aware that any underserved population has higher rates of mental health issues, such as depression and anxiety. Obviously, that goes along with being underserved and the stigma and the disparities that exist for these patients. Having providers educate themselves about what those disparities are and how they impact a patient’s daily life and health is paramount to knowing how to treat patients.

What are your top health concerns for these patients and how do you address them?

Dr. Brandt: I think mental health and safety is probably the number one for me. About 41% of transgender adults have attempted suicide. That number is roughly 51% in transgender youth. That is an astonishing number. These patients have much higher rates of domestic violence, intimate partner violence, and sexual assault, especially trans women and trans women of color. So understanding those statistics is huge.

Obesity, smoking, and substance abuse are my next three. Again, those are things that should be addressed at any visit, regardless of the gender identity or sexual orientation of the patient, but those rates are particularly high in this population.

Fertility and long-term care for patients should be addressed. Many patients who identify as transgender are told they can’t have a family. As a primary care physician, you may see a patient before they are seen by an ob.gyn. or surgeon. Talking about what a patient’s long-term life goals are with fertility and family planning, and what that looks like for them, is a big thing for me. Other providers may not feel that’s a concern, but I believe it should be discussed before initiation of hormone therapy, which can significantly impact fertility in some patients.

Are there nuances to the physical examination that primary care physicians should be aware of when dealing with transmasculine patients vs. transfeminine patients?

Dr. Brandt: Absolutely. And this interview can’t cover the scope of those nuances. An example that comes to mind is the genital exam. For transgender women who have undergone a vaginoplasty, the pelvic exam can be very affirming. Whereas for transgender men, a gynecologic exam can significantly exacerbate dysphoria and there are ways to conduct the exam to limit this discomfort and avoid creating a traumatic experience for the patient. It’s important to be aware that the genital exam, or any type of genitourinary exam, can be either affirming or not affirming.

Sexually transmitted infections are up in the general population, and the trans population is at even higher risk. What should physicians think about when they assess this risk?

Dr. Brandt: It’s really important for primary care clinicians and for gynecologists to learn to be comfortable talking about sexual practices, because what people do behind closed doors is really a key to how to counsel patients about safe sex.

People are well aware of the need to have safe sex. However, depending on the type of sex that you’re having, what body parts go where, what is truly safe can vary and people may not know, for example, to wear a condom when sex toys are involved or that a transgender male on testosterone can become pregnant during penile-vaginal intercourse. Providers really should be very educated on the array of sexual practices that people have and how to counsel them about those. They should know how to ask patients the gender identity of their sexual partners, the sexual orientation of their partners, and what parts go where during sex.

Providers should also talk to patients about PrEP [pre-exposure prophylaxis], whether they identify as cisgender or transgender. My trans patients tend to be a lot more educated about PrEP than other patients. It’s something that many of the residents, even in a standard gynecologic clinic, for example, don’t talk to cisgender patients about because of the stigma surrounding HIV. Many providers still think that the only people who are at risk for HIV are men who have sex with men. And while those rates are higher in some populations, depending on sexual practices, those aren’t the only patients who qualify for PrEP.

Overall, in order to counsel patients about STIs and safe sexual practices, providers should learn to be comfortable talking about sex.

Do you have any strategies on how to make the appointment more successful in addressing those issues?

Dr. Brandt: Bedside manner is a hard thing to teach, and comfort in talking about sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation can vary – but there are a lot of continuing medical education courses that physicians can utilize through the World Professional Association for Transgender Health.

If providers start to notice an influx of patients who identify as transgender or if they want to start seeing transgender patients, it’s really important for them to have that training before they start interacting with patients. In all of medicine, we sort of learn as we go, but this patient population has been subjected to discrimination, violence, error, and misgendering. They have dealt with providers who didn’t understand their health care needs. While this field is evolving, knowing how to appropriately address a patient (using their correct name, pronouns, etc.) is an absolute must.

That needs to be part of a provider’s routine vernacular and not something that they sort of stumble through. You can scare a patient away as soon as they walk into the office with an uneducated front desk staff and things that are seen in the office. Seeking out those educational tools, being aware of your own deficits as a provider and the educational needs of your office, and addressing those needs is really key.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

People who identify as transgender experience many health disparities, in addition to lack of access to quality care. The most commonly cited barrier is the lack of providers who are knowledgeable about transgender health care, according to past surveys.

Even those who do seek care often have unpleasant experiences. A 2015 survey conducted by the National Center for Transgender Equality found that 33% of those who saw a health care provider reported at least one  unfavorable experience related to being transgender, such as being verbally harassed or refused treatment because of their gender identity. In fact, 23% of those surveyed say they did not seek health care they needed in the past year because of fear of being mistreated as a transgender person.

To find out how physicians can provide more compassionate, effective care for this group, this news organization spoke with K. Ashley Brandt, DO, gender-affirming surgeon and obstetrician/gynecologist in West Reading, Penn. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Question: Surveys have shown that many people who identify as transgender will seek only transition care, not primary or preventive care. Why is that?

Dr. Brandt: My answer is multifactorial. Transgender patients do seek primary care – just not as readily. There’s a lot of misconceptions about health care needs for the LGBT community in general. For example, lesbian or bisexual women may be not as well informed about the need for Pap smears compared with their heterosexual counterparts. These misconceptions are further exacerbated in the transgender community.

The fact that a lot of patients seek only transition-related care, but not preventive services, such as primary care and gynecologic care, is also related to fears of discrimination and lack of education of providers. These patients are afraid when they walk into an office that they will be misgendered or their physician won’t be familiar with their health care needs.

What can clinics and clinicians do to create a safe and welcoming environment?

Dr. Brandt: It starts with educating office staff about terminology and gender identities.

A key feature of our EHR is the sexual orientation and gender identity platform, which asks questions about a patient’s gender identity, sexual orientation, sex assigned at birth, and organ inventory. These data are then found in the patient information tab and are just as relevant as their insurance status, age, and date of birth.

There are many ways a doctor’s office can signal to patients that they are inclusive. They can hang LGBTQ-friendly flags or symbols or a sign saying, “We have an anti-discrimination policy” in the waiting room.  A welcoming environment can also be achieved by revising patient questionnaires or forms so that they aren’t gender-specific or binary.

Given that the patient may have limited contact with a primary care clinician, how do you prioritize what you address during the visit?

Dr. Brandt: Similar to cisgender patients, it depends initially on the age of the patient and the reason for the visit. The priorities of an otherwise healthy transgender patient in their 20s are going to be largely the same as for a cisgender patient of the same age. As patients age in the primary care world, you’re addressing more issues, such as colorectal screening, lipid disorders, and mammograms, and that doesn’t change. For the most part, the problems that you address should be specific for that age group.

It becomes more complicated when you add in factors such as hormone therapy and whether patients have had any type of gender-affirming surgery. Those things can change the usual recommendations for screening or risk assessment. We try to figure out what routine health maintenance and cancer screening a patient needs based on age and risk factors, in addition to hormone status and surgical state.

Do you think that many physicians are educated about the care of underserved populations such as transgender patients?

Dr. Brandt: Yes and no. We are definitely getting better at it. For example, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists published a committee opinion highlighting transgender care. So organizations are starting to prioritize these populations and recognize that they are, in fact, underserved and they have special health care needs.

However, the knowledge gaps are still pretty big. I get calls daily from providers asking questions about how to manage patients on hormones, or how to examine a patient who has undergone a vaginoplasty. I hear a lot of horror stories from transgender patients who had their hormones stopped for absurd and medically misinformed reasons.

But I definitely think it’s getting better and it’s being addressed at all levels – the medical school level, the residency level, and the attending level. It just takes time to inform people and for people to get used to the health care needs of these patients.

What should physicians keep in mind when treating patients who identify as transgender?

Dr. Brandt: First and foremost, understanding the terminology and the difference between gender identity, sex, and sexual orientation. Being familiar with that language and being able to speak that language very comfortably and not being awkward about it is a really important thing for primary care physicians and indeed any physician who treats transgender patients.

Physicians should also be aware that any underserved population has higher rates of mental health issues, such as depression and anxiety. Obviously, that goes along with being underserved and the stigma and the disparities that exist for these patients. Having providers educate themselves about what those disparities are and how they impact a patient’s daily life and health is paramount to knowing how to treat patients.

What are your top health concerns for these patients and how do you address them?

Dr. Brandt: I think mental health and safety is probably the number one for me. About 41% of transgender adults have attempted suicide. That number is roughly 51% in transgender youth. That is an astonishing number. These patients have much higher rates of domestic violence, intimate partner violence, and sexual assault, especially trans women and trans women of color. So understanding those statistics is huge.

Obesity, smoking, and substance abuse are my next three. Again, those are things that should be addressed at any visit, regardless of the gender identity or sexual orientation of the patient, but those rates are particularly high in this population.

Fertility and long-term care for patients should be addressed. Many patients who identify as transgender are told they can’t have a family. As a primary care physician, you may see a patient before they are seen by an ob.gyn. or surgeon. Talking about what a patient’s long-term life goals are with fertility and family planning, and what that looks like for them, is a big thing for me. Other providers may not feel that’s a concern, but I believe it should be discussed before initiation of hormone therapy, which can significantly impact fertility in some patients.

Are there nuances to the physical examination that primary care physicians should be aware of when dealing with transmasculine patients vs. transfeminine patients?

Dr. Brandt: Absolutely. And this interview can’t cover the scope of those nuances. An example that comes to mind is the genital exam. For transgender women who have undergone a vaginoplasty, the pelvic exam can be very affirming. Whereas for transgender men, a gynecologic exam can significantly exacerbate dysphoria and there are ways to conduct the exam to limit this discomfort and avoid creating a traumatic experience for the patient. It’s important to be aware that the genital exam, or any type of genitourinary exam, can be either affirming or not affirming.

Sexually transmitted infections are up in the general population, and the trans population is at even higher risk. What should physicians think about when they assess this risk?

Dr. Brandt: It’s really important for primary care clinicians and for gynecologists to learn to be comfortable talking about sexual practices, because what people do behind closed doors is really a key to how to counsel patients about safe sex.

People are well aware of the need to have safe sex. However, depending on the type of sex that you’re having, what body parts go where, what is truly safe can vary and people may not know, for example, to wear a condom when sex toys are involved or that a transgender male on testosterone can become pregnant during penile-vaginal intercourse. Providers really should be very educated on the array of sexual practices that people have and how to counsel them about those. They should know how to ask patients the gender identity of their sexual partners, the sexual orientation of their partners, and what parts go where during sex.

Providers should also talk to patients about PrEP [pre-exposure prophylaxis], whether they identify as cisgender or transgender. My trans patients tend to be a lot more educated about PrEP than other patients. It’s something that many of the residents, even in a standard gynecologic clinic, for example, don’t talk to cisgender patients about because of the stigma surrounding HIV. Many providers still think that the only people who are at risk for HIV are men who have sex with men. And while those rates are higher in some populations, depending on sexual practices, those aren’t the only patients who qualify for PrEP.

Overall, in order to counsel patients about STIs and safe sexual practices, providers should learn to be comfortable talking about sex.

Do you have any strategies on how to make the appointment more successful in addressing those issues?

Dr. Brandt: Bedside manner is a hard thing to teach, and comfort in talking about sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation can vary – but there are a lot of continuing medical education courses that physicians can utilize through the World Professional Association for Transgender Health.

If providers start to notice an influx of patients who identify as transgender or if they want to start seeing transgender patients, it’s really important for them to have that training before they start interacting with patients. In all of medicine, we sort of learn as we go, but this patient population has been subjected to discrimination, violence, error, and misgendering. They have dealt with providers who didn’t understand their health care needs. While this field is evolving, knowing how to appropriately address a patient (using their correct name, pronouns, etc.) is an absolute must.

That needs to be part of a provider’s routine vernacular and not something that they sort of stumble through. You can scare a patient away as soon as they walk into the office with an uneducated front desk staff and things that are seen in the office. Seeking out those educational tools, being aware of your own deficits as a provider and the educational needs of your office, and addressing those needs is really key.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

People who identify as transgender experience many health disparities, in addition to lack of access to quality care. The most commonly cited barrier is the lack of providers who are knowledgeable about transgender health care, according to past surveys.

Even those who do seek care often have unpleasant experiences. A 2015 survey conducted by the National Center for Transgender Equality found that 33% of those who saw a health care provider reported at least one  unfavorable experience related to being transgender, such as being verbally harassed or refused treatment because of their gender identity. In fact, 23% of those surveyed say they did not seek health care they needed in the past year because of fear of being mistreated as a transgender person.

To find out how physicians can provide more compassionate, effective care for this group, this news organization spoke with K. Ashley Brandt, DO, gender-affirming surgeon and obstetrician/gynecologist in West Reading, Penn. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Question: Surveys have shown that many people who identify as transgender will seek only transition care, not primary or preventive care. Why is that?

Dr. Brandt: My answer is multifactorial. Transgender patients do seek primary care – just not as readily. There’s a lot of misconceptions about health care needs for the LGBT community in general. For example, lesbian or bisexual women may be not as well informed about the need for Pap smears compared with their heterosexual counterparts. These misconceptions are further exacerbated in the transgender community.

The fact that a lot of patients seek only transition-related care, but not preventive services, such as primary care and gynecologic care, is also related to fears of discrimination and lack of education of providers. These patients are afraid when they walk into an office that they will be misgendered or their physician won’t be familiar with their health care needs.

What can clinics and clinicians do to create a safe and welcoming environment?

Dr. Brandt: It starts with educating office staff about terminology and gender identities.

A key feature of our EHR is the sexual orientation and gender identity platform, which asks questions about a patient’s gender identity, sexual orientation, sex assigned at birth, and organ inventory. These data are then found in the patient information tab and are just as relevant as their insurance status, age, and date of birth.

There are many ways a doctor’s office can signal to patients that they are inclusive. They can hang LGBTQ-friendly flags or symbols or a sign saying, “We have an anti-discrimination policy” in the waiting room.  A welcoming environment can also be achieved by revising patient questionnaires or forms so that they aren’t gender-specific or binary.

Given that the patient may have limited contact with a primary care clinician, how do you prioritize what you address during the visit?

Dr. Brandt: Similar to cisgender patients, it depends initially on the age of the patient and the reason for the visit. The priorities of an otherwise healthy transgender patient in their 20s are going to be largely the same as for a cisgender patient of the same age. As patients age in the primary care world, you’re addressing more issues, such as colorectal screening, lipid disorders, and mammograms, and that doesn’t change. For the most part, the problems that you address should be specific for that age group.

It becomes more complicated when you add in factors such as hormone therapy and whether patients have had any type of gender-affirming surgery. Those things can change the usual recommendations for screening or risk assessment. We try to figure out what routine health maintenance and cancer screening a patient needs based on age and risk factors, in addition to hormone status and surgical state.

Do you think that many physicians are educated about the care of underserved populations such as transgender patients?

Dr. Brandt: Yes and no. We are definitely getting better at it. For example, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists published a committee opinion highlighting transgender care. So organizations are starting to prioritize these populations and recognize that they are, in fact, underserved and they have special health care needs.

However, the knowledge gaps are still pretty big. I get calls daily from providers asking questions about how to manage patients on hormones, or how to examine a patient who has undergone a vaginoplasty. I hear a lot of horror stories from transgender patients who had their hormones stopped for absurd and medically misinformed reasons.

But I definitely think it’s getting better and it’s being addressed at all levels – the medical school level, the residency level, and the attending level. It just takes time to inform people and for people to get used to the health care needs of these patients.

What should physicians keep in mind when treating patients who identify as transgender?

Dr. Brandt: First and foremost, understanding the terminology and the difference between gender identity, sex, and sexual orientation. Being familiar with that language and being able to speak that language very comfortably and not being awkward about it is a really important thing for primary care physicians and indeed any physician who treats transgender patients.

Physicians should also be aware that any underserved population has higher rates of mental health issues, such as depression and anxiety. Obviously, that goes along with being underserved and the stigma and the disparities that exist for these patients. Having providers educate themselves about what those disparities are and how they impact a patient’s daily life and health is paramount to knowing how to treat patients.

What are your top health concerns for these patients and how do you address them?

Dr. Brandt: I think mental health and safety is probably the number one for me. About 41% of transgender adults have attempted suicide. That number is roughly 51% in transgender youth. That is an astonishing number. These patients have much higher rates of domestic violence, intimate partner violence, and sexual assault, especially trans women and trans women of color. So understanding those statistics is huge.

Obesity, smoking, and substance abuse are my next three. Again, those are things that should be addressed at any visit, regardless of the gender identity or sexual orientation of the patient, but those rates are particularly high in this population.

Fertility and long-term care for patients should be addressed. Many patients who identify as transgender are told they can’t have a family. As a primary care physician, you may see a patient before they are seen by an ob.gyn. or surgeon. Talking about what a patient’s long-term life goals are with fertility and family planning, and what that looks like for them, is a big thing for me. Other providers may not feel that’s a concern, but I believe it should be discussed before initiation of hormone therapy, which can significantly impact fertility in some patients.

Are there nuances to the physical examination that primary care physicians should be aware of when dealing with transmasculine patients vs. transfeminine patients?

Dr. Brandt: Absolutely. And this interview can’t cover the scope of those nuances. An example that comes to mind is the genital exam. For transgender women who have undergone a vaginoplasty, the pelvic exam can be very affirming. Whereas for transgender men, a gynecologic exam can significantly exacerbate dysphoria and there are ways to conduct the exam to limit this discomfort and avoid creating a traumatic experience for the patient. It’s important to be aware that the genital exam, or any type of genitourinary exam, can be either affirming or not affirming.

Sexually transmitted infections are up in the general population, and the trans population is at even higher risk. What should physicians think about when they assess this risk?

Dr. Brandt: It’s really important for primary care clinicians and for gynecologists to learn to be comfortable talking about sexual practices, because what people do behind closed doors is really a key to how to counsel patients about safe sex.

People are well aware of the need to have safe sex. However, depending on the type of sex that you’re having, what body parts go where, what is truly safe can vary and people may not know, for example, to wear a condom when sex toys are involved or that a transgender male on testosterone can become pregnant during penile-vaginal intercourse. Providers really should be very educated on the array of sexual practices that people have and how to counsel them about those. They should know how to ask patients the gender identity of their sexual partners, the sexual orientation of their partners, and what parts go where during sex.

Providers should also talk to patients about PrEP [pre-exposure prophylaxis], whether they identify as cisgender or transgender. My trans patients tend to be a lot more educated about PrEP than other patients. It’s something that many of the residents, even in a standard gynecologic clinic, for example, don’t talk to cisgender patients about because of the stigma surrounding HIV. Many providers still think that the only people who are at risk for HIV are men who have sex with men. And while those rates are higher in some populations, depending on sexual practices, those aren’t the only patients who qualify for PrEP.

Overall, in order to counsel patients about STIs and safe sexual practices, providers should learn to be comfortable talking about sex.

Do you have any strategies on how to make the appointment more successful in addressing those issues?

Dr. Brandt: Bedside manner is a hard thing to teach, and comfort in talking about sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation can vary – but there are a lot of continuing medical education courses that physicians can utilize through the World Professional Association for Transgender Health.

If providers start to notice an influx of patients who identify as transgender or if they want to start seeing transgender patients, it’s really important for them to have that training before they start interacting with patients. In all of medicine, we sort of learn as we go, but this patient population has been subjected to discrimination, violence, error, and misgendering. They have dealt with providers who didn’t understand their health care needs. While this field is evolving, knowing how to appropriately address a patient (using their correct name, pronouns, etc.) is an absolute must.

That needs to be part of a provider’s routine vernacular and not something that they sort of stumble through. You can scare a patient away as soon as they walk into the office with an uneducated front desk staff and things that are seen in the office. Seeking out those educational tools, being aware of your own deficits as a provider and the educational needs of your office, and addressing those needs is really key.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Each afternoon, Cyrus Shahpar, MD, the data guru for the White House COVID-19 Response Team, sends an email to staffers with the daily count of COVID-19 vaccinations delivered in the United States.

The numbers, collected from states ahead of the final figures being posted on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website, act as a report card of sorts on the team’s efforts.

On Saturday, April 3, it was a new record: 4.1 million vaccinations delivered in a single day, more than the total population of some states.

While the United States has a long way to go before it is done with COVID-19, there’s finally some good news in the nation’s long and blundering slog through the pandemic.

After a rocky start in December 2020 and January 2021, vaccination is happening faster than nearly anyone thought possible. As more people see their friends and family roll up their sleeves, hesitancy is dropping, too.

In settings where large numbers of people are vaccinated, such as nursing homes, COVID-19 cases and deaths have plunged.

Those gains, however, haven’t been shared equally. According to CDC data, 69% of people who are fully vaccinated are White, while just 8% are Black and about 9% are Hispanic, a group that now represents most new COVID-19 cases. 

Officials say that’s partly because the vaccines were rolled out to the elderly first. The average life expectancy for Black people in the United States is now age 72, which means there were fewer people of color represented in the first groups to become eligible. Experts are hopeful that underrepresented groups will start to catch up as more states open up vaccinations to younger people.

Based on overall numbers of daily vaccine doses, the United States ranks third, behind China and India. America ranks fourth – behind Israel, the United Kingdom, and Chile – in the total share of the population that’s been vaccinated, according to the website Our World in Data.
 

A positive development

It’s a stunning turnaround for a country that failed for months to develop effective tests, and still struggles in some quarters to investigate new cases and quarantine their contacts.

The 7-day rolling average of vaccines administered in the United States is currently more than 3 million a day.

“We knew that we needed to get to 3 million a day at some point, if we were going to get most people vaccinated this year, but I don’t think that most people expected it to happen this early,” said Eric Toner, MD, a senior scholar with the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in Baltimore.

Before taking office, President Joe Biden pledged to get 100 million shots in arms within his first 100 days in office. After hitting that goal in late March, he doubled it, to 200 million vaccinations by April 30. After first saying all adults should be eligible to get in line for the vaccine by May 1, on April 6, he bumped up that date to April 19. 

Some media reports have seen this repeated moving of the goalposts as calculated – an unstated strategy of underpromising and overdelivering with the aim of rebuilding public trust.

But others pointed out that, even if that’s true, the goals being set aren’t easy, and hitting them has never been a given.

“I think the Biden administration really gets a lot of credit for pushing the companies to get more vaccine out faster than they had planned to,” Dr. Toner said. “And the states have really responded as well as the federal government in terms of getting vaccination sites going. So we’re not only getting the vaccines, we’re getting it into people’s arms faster than expected.”

Others agree.

“We’re doing an amazing job, and I think the U.S. is really beginning to bend the curve,” said Carlos del Rio, MD, an infectious disease specialist and distinguished professor of medicine at Emory University, Atlanta.

“I think overall it’s just that everybody’s putting in a ton of work to get it done,” he said.

On April 3, the day the United States hit its vaccination record, he was volunteering to give vaccinations.

“I mean, of all the bad things we do to people as clinicians, this is one thing that people are very happy about, right?” Dr. del Rio said.

He said he vaccinated a young woman who asked if she could video chat with her mom, who was feeling nervous about getting the shot. He answered her mom’s questions, and later that day, she came down to be vaccinated herself.
 

‘We view it as a war’

The White House COVID-19 Response Team has worked hard to better coordinate the work of so many people at both the federal and state levels, Andy Slavitt, senior adviser for the team, said in an interview.

“We view it as a war, and in a war, you do everything: You bring experienced personnel; you bring all the resources to bear; you create multiple routes,” Mr. Slavitt said. “You don’t leave anything to chance.”

Among the levers the administration has pulled, using the Defense Production Act has helped vaccine manufacturers get needed supplies, Mr. Slavitt said.

The administration has set up an array of Federal Emergency Management Agency–run community vaccination centers and mobile vaccination sites to complement state-led efforts, and it’s activated a federal health law called the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, which provides immunity from liability for retired doctors and nurses, among others, who sign up to help give vaccinations. That’s helped get more people into the field giving shots. 

The administration also canceled a plan to allocate vaccines to states based on their pace of administration, which would have punished underperforming states. Instead, doses are allocated based on population. 

In a media call on April 7, when asked whether the administration would send additional vaccines to Michigan, a state that’s seeing a surge of COVID-19 cases with more transmissible variants, Mr. Slavitt said they weren’t managing vaccine supply “according to some formula.”

He said they were distributing based on population “because that’s fundamental,” but were also locating vaccines “surgically in places that have had the greatest disease and where people have the greatest exposure.”

He said sites like community health centers and retail pharmacies have the power to order vaccines directly from the federal government, which helps get more supply to harder-hit areas.

Mr. Slavitt said hitting 4.1 million daily vaccinations on April 3 was gratifying.

“I’ve seen photographs ... of people breaking down in tears when they get their vaccine, people who are giving standing ovations to active military for taking care of them,” he said, “and I think about people who have gone for a long time without hope, or who have been very scared.

“It’s incredibly encouraging to think about maybe a few million people taking a step back to normal life again,” he said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Each afternoon, Cyrus Shahpar, MD, the data guru for the White House COVID-19 Response Team, sends an email to staffers with the daily count of COVID-19 vaccinations delivered in the United States.

The numbers, collected from states ahead of the final figures being posted on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website, act as a report card of sorts on the team’s efforts.

On Saturday, April 3, it was a new record: 4.1 million vaccinations delivered in a single day, more than the total population of some states.

While the United States has a long way to go before it is done with COVID-19, there’s finally some good news in the nation’s long and blundering slog through the pandemic.

After a rocky start in December 2020 and January 2021, vaccination is happening faster than nearly anyone thought possible. As more people see their friends and family roll up their sleeves, hesitancy is dropping, too.

In settings where large numbers of people are vaccinated, such as nursing homes, COVID-19 cases and deaths have plunged.

Those gains, however, haven’t been shared equally. According to CDC data, 69% of people who are fully vaccinated are White, while just 8% are Black and about 9% are Hispanic, a group that now represents most new COVID-19 cases. 

Officials say that’s partly because the vaccines were rolled out to the elderly first. The average life expectancy for Black people in the United States is now age 72, which means there were fewer people of color represented in the first groups to become eligible. Experts are hopeful that underrepresented groups will start to catch up as more states open up vaccinations to younger people.

Based on overall numbers of daily vaccine doses, the United States ranks third, behind China and India. America ranks fourth – behind Israel, the United Kingdom, and Chile – in the total share of the population that’s been vaccinated, according to the website Our World in Data.
 

A positive development

It’s a stunning turnaround for a country that failed for months to develop effective tests, and still struggles in some quarters to investigate new cases and quarantine their contacts.

The 7-day rolling average of vaccines administered in the United States is currently more than 3 million a day.

“We knew that we needed to get to 3 million a day at some point, if we were going to get most people vaccinated this year, but I don’t think that most people expected it to happen this early,” said Eric Toner, MD, a senior scholar with the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in Baltimore.

Before taking office, President Joe Biden pledged to get 100 million shots in arms within his first 100 days in office. After hitting that goal in late March, he doubled it, to 200 million vaccinations by April 30. After first saying all adults should be eligible to get in line for the vaccine by May 1, on April 6, he bumped up that date to April 19. 

Some media reports have seen this repeated moving of the goalposts as calculated – an unstated strategy of underpromising and overdelivering with the aim of rebuilding public trust.

But others pointed out that, even if that’s true, the goals being set aren’t easy, and hitting them has never been a given.

“I think the Biden administration really gets a lot of credit for pushing the companies to get more vaccine out faster than they had planned to,” Dr. Toner said. “And the states have really responded as well as the federal government in terms of getting vaccination sites going. So we’re not only getting the vaccines, we’re getting it into people’s arms faster than expected.”

Others agree.

“We’re doing an amazing job, and I think the U.S. is really beginning to bend the curve,” said Carlos del Rio, MD, an infectious disease specialist and distinguished professor of medicine at Emory University, Atlanta.

“I think overall it’s just that everybody’s putting in a ton of work to get it done,” he said.

On April 3, the day the United States hit its vaccination record, he was volunteering to give vaccinations.

“I mean, of all the bad things we do to people as clinicians, this is one thing that people are very happy about, right?” Dr. del Rio said.

He said he vaccinated a young woman who asked if she could video chat with her mom, who was feeling nervous about getting the shot. He answered her mom’s questions, and later that day, she came down to be vaccinated herself.
 

‘We view it as a war’

The White House COVID-19 Response Team has worked hard to better coordinate the work of so many people at both the federal and state levels, Andy Slavitt, senior adviser for the team, said in an interview.

“We view it as a war, and in a war, you do everything: You bring experienced personnel; you bring all the resources to bear; you create multiple routes,” Mr. Slavitt said. “You don’t leave anything to chance.”

Among the levers the administration has pulled, using the Defense Production Act has helped vaccine manufacturers get needed supplies, Mr. Slavitt said.

The administration has set up an array of Federal Emergency Management Agency–run community vaccination centers and mobile vaccination sites to complement state-led efforts, and it’s activated a federal health law called the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, which provides immunity from liability for retired doctors and nurses, among others, who sign up to help give vaccinations. That’s helped get more people into the field giving shots. 

The administration also canceled a plan to allocate vaccines to states based on their pace of administration, which would have punished underperforming states. Instead, doses are allocated based on population. 

In a media call on April 7, when asked whether the administration would send additional vaccines to Michigan, a state that’s seeing a surge of COVID-19 cases with more transmissible variants, Mr. Slavitt said they weren’t managing vaccine supply “according to some formula.”

He said they were distributing based on population “because that’s fundamental,” but were also locating vaccines “surgically in places that have had the greatest disease and where people have the greatest exposure.”

He said sites like community health centers and retail pharmacies have the power to order vaccines directly from the federal government, which helps get more supply to harder-hit areas.

Mr. Slavitt said hitting 4.1 million daily vaccinations on April 3 was gratifying.

“I’ve seen photographs ... of people breaking down in tears when they get their vaccine, people who are giving standing ovations to active military for taking care of them,” he said, “and I think about people who have gone for a long time without hope, or who have been very scared.

“It’s incredibly encouraging to think about maybe a few million people taking a step back to normal life again,” he said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Each afternoon, Cyrus Shahpar, MD, the data guru for the White House COVID-19 Response Team, sends an email to staffers with the daily count of COVID-19 vaccinations delivered in the United States.

The numbers, collected from states ahead of the final figures being posted on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website, act as a report card of sorts on the team’s efforts.

On Saturday, April 3, it was a new record: 4.1 million vaccinations delivered in a single day, more than the total population of some states.

While the United States has a long way to go before it is done with COVID-19, there’s finally some good news in the nation’s long and blundering slog through the pandemic.

After a rocky start in December 2020 and January 2021, vaccination is happening faster than nearly anyone thought possible. As more people see their friends and family roll up their sleeves, hesitancy is dropping, too.

In settings where large numbers of people are vaccinated, such as nursing homes, COVID-19 cases and deaths have plunged.

Those gains, however, haven’t been shared equally. According to CDC data, 69% of people who are fully vaccinated are White, while just 8% are Black and about 9% are Hispanic, a group that now represents most new COVID-19 cases. 

Officials say that’s partly because the vaccines were rolled out to the elderly first. The average life expectancy for Black people in the United States is now age 72, which means there were fewer people of color represented in the first groups to become eligible. Experts are hopeful that underrepresented groups will start to catch up as more states open up vaccinations to younger people.

Based on overall numbers of daily vaccine doses, the United States ranks third, behind China and India. America ranks fourth – behind Israel, the United Kingdom, and Chile – in the total share of the population that’s been vaccinated, according to the website Our World in Data.
 

A positive development

It’s a stunning turnaround for a country that failed for months to develop effective tests, and still struggles in some quarters to investigate new cases and quarantine their contacts.

The 7-day rolling average of vaccines administered in the United States is currently more than 3 million a day.

“We knew that we needed to get to 3 million a day at some point, if we were going to get most people vaccinated this year, but I don’t think that most people expected it to happen this early,” said Eric Toner, MD, a senior scholar with the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in Baltimore.

Before taking office, President Joe Biden pledged to get 100 million shots in arms within his first 100 days in office. After hitting that goal in late March, he doubled it, to 200 million vaccinations by April 30. After first saying all adults should be eligible to get in line for the vaccine by May 1, on April 6, he bumped up that date to April 19. 

Some media reports have seen this repeated moving of the goalposts as calculated – an unstated strategy of underpromising and overdelivering with the aim of rebuilding public trust.

But others pointed out that, even if that’s true, the goals being set aren’t easy, and hitting them has never been a given.

“I think the Biden administration really gets a lot of credit for pushing the companies to get more vaccine out faster than they had planned to,” Dr. Toner said. “And the states have really responded as well as the federal government in terms of getting vaccination sites going. So we’re not only getting the vaccines, we’re getting it into people’s arms faster than expected.”

Others agree.

“We’re doing an amazing job, and I think the U.S. is really beginning to bend the curve,” said Carlos del Rio, MD, an infectious disease specialist and distinguished professor of medicine at Emory University, Atlanta.

“I think overall it’s just that everybody’s putting in a ton of work to get it done,” he said.

On April 3, the day the United States hit its vaccination record, he was volunteering to give vaccinations.

“I mean, of all the bad things we do to people as clinicians, this is one thing that people are very happy about, right?” Dr. del Rio said.

He said he vaccinated a young woman who asked if she could video chat with her mom, who was feeling nervous about getting the shot. He answered her mom’s questions, and later that day, she came down to be vaccinated herself.
 

‘We view it as a war’

The White House COVID-19 Response Team has worked hard to better coordinate the work of so many people at both the federal and state levels, Andy Slavitt, senior adviser for the team, said in an interview.

“We view it as a war, and in a war, you do everything: You bring experienced personnel; you bring all the resources to bear; you create multiple routes,” Mr. Slavitt said. “You don’t leave anything to chance.”

Among the levers the administration has pulled, using the Defense Production Act has helped vaccine manufacturers get needed supplies, Mr. Slavitt said.

The administration has set up an array of Federal Emergency Management Agency–run community vaccination centers and mobile vaccination sites to complement state-led efforts, and it’s activated a federal health law called the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, which provides immunity from liability for retired doctors and nurses, among others, who sign up to help give vaccinations. That’s helped get more people into the field giving shots. 

The administration also canceled a plan to allocate vaccines to states based on their pace of administration, which would have punished underperforming states. Instead, doses are allocated based on population. 

In a media call on April 7, when asked whether the administration would send additional vaccines to Michigan, a state that’s seeing a surge of COVID-19 cases with more transmissible variants, Mr. Slavitt said they weren’t managing vaccine supply “according to some formula.”

He said they were distributing based on population “because that’s fundamental,” but were also locating vaccines “surgically in places that have had the greatest disease and where people have the greatest exposure.”

He said sites like community health centers and retail pharmacies have the power to order vaccines directly from the federal government, which helps get more supply to harder-hit areas.

Mr. Slavitt said hitting 4.1 million daily vaccinations on April 3 was gratifying.

“I’ve seen photographs ... of people breaking down in tears when they get their vaccine, people who are giving standing ovations to active military for taking care of them,” he said, “and I think about people who have gone for a long time without hope, or who have been very scared.

“It’s incredibly encouraging to think about maybe a few million people taking a step back to normal life again,” he said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Arkansas has become the first state to pass a law prohibiting doctors from giving gender-affirming medical treatments to transgender youths, CNN reported.

Gov. Asa Hutchinson had vetoed the bill on April 5, calling it a “product of the cultural war in America.” But on April 6, the state House and Senate voted to override the veto, making it state law, CNN reported.

At least 17 other states are considering similar legislation, but the Arkansas bill was the first to reach the governor’s desk, the Washington Post reported.

The bill bans doctors from prescribing puberty blockers, hormone therapies, or genital-altering surgeries for anybody under 18. Ever referring a youth for such treatment from another doctor is prohibited.

“It is of grave concern to the General Assembly that the medical community is allowing individuals who experience distress at identifying with their biological sex to be subjects of irreversible and drastic nongenital gender reassignment surgery and irreversible, permanently sterilizing genital gender reassignment surgery, despite the lack of studies showing that the benefits of such extreme interventions outweigh the risks,” the text of the bill said.

Gov. Hutchinson, a Republican, had called the measure a “vast government overreach” in announcing his veto.

“The bill is overbroad, extreme, and does not grandfather those young people who are currently under hormone treatment,” Gov. Hutchinson said. “The young people who are currently under a doctor’s care will be without treatment when this law goes into effect. That means they will be looking to the black market or go out of state ... to find the treatment that they want and need. This is not the right path to put them on.”

Many medical groups have come out against this kind of legislation. The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry says it “strongly opposes any efforts – legal, legislative, and otherwise – to block access to these recognized interventions.”

Chase Strangio, the deputy director for transgender justice with the American Civil Liberty Union’s LGBTQ & HIV Project, complimented Gov. Hutchinson for his veto. On April 6, he said the ACLU is preparing to challenge the bill in court, CNN said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Arkansas has become the first state to pass a law prohibiting doctors from giving gender-affirming medical treatments to transgender youths, CNN reported.

Gov. Asa Hutchinson had vetoed the bill on April 5, calling it a “product of the cultural war in America.” But on April 6, the state House and Senate voted to override the veto, making it state law, CNN reported.

At least 17 other states are considering similar legislation, but the Arkansas bill was the first to reach the governor’s desk, the Washington Post reported.

The bill bans doctors from prescribing puberty blockers, hormone therapies, or genital-altering surgeries for anybody under 18. Ever referring a youth for such treatment from another doctor is prohibited.

“It is of grave concern to the General Assembly that the medical community is allowing individuals who experience distress at identifying with their biological sex to be subjects of irreversible and drastic nongenital gender reassignment surgery and irreversible, permanently sterilizing genital gender reassignment surgery, despite the lack of studies showing that the benefits of such extreme interventions outweigh the risks,” the text of the bill said.

Gov. Hutchinson, a Republican, had called the measure a “vast government overreach” in announcing his veto.

“The bill is overbroad, extreme, and does not grandfather those young people who are currently under hormone treatment,” Gov. Hutchinson said. “The young people who are currently under a doctor’s care will be without treatment when this law goes into effect. That means they will be looking to the black market or go out of state ... to find the treatment that they want and need. This is not the right path to put them on.”

Many medical groups have come out against this kind of legislation. The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry says it “strongly opposes any efforts – legal, legislative, and otherwise – to block access to these recognized interventions.”

Chase Strangio, the deputy director for transgender justice with the American Civil Liberty Union’s LGBTQ & HIV Project, complimented Gov. Hutchinson for his veto. On April 6, he said the ACLU is preparing to challenge the bill in court, CNN said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Arkansas has become the first state to pass a law prohibiting doctors from giving gender-affirming medical treatments to transgender youths, CNN reported.

Gov. Asa Hutchinson had vetoed the bill on April 5, calling it a “product of the cultural war in America.” But on April 6, the state House and Senate voted to override the veto, making it state law, CNN reported.

At least 17 other states are considering similar legislation, but the Arkansas bill was the first to reach the governor’s desk, the Washington Post reported.

The bill bans doctors from prescribing puberty blockers, hormone therapies, or genital-altering surgeries for anybody under 18. Ever referring a youth for such treatment from another doctor is prohibited.

“It is of grave concern to the General Assembly that the medical community is allowing individuals who experience distress at identifying with their biological sex to be subjects of irreversible and drastic nongenital gender reassignment surgery and irreversible, permanently sterilizing genital gender reassignment surgery, despite the lack of studies showing that the benefits of such extreme interventions outweigh the risks,” the text of the bill said.

Gov. Hutchinson, a Republican, had called the measure a “vast government overreach” in announcing his veto.

“The bill is overbroad, extreme, and does not grandfather those young people who are currently under hormone treatment,” Gov. Hutchinson said. “The young people who are currently under a doctor’s care will be without treatment when this law goes into effect. That means they will be looking to the black market or go out of state ... to find the treatment that they want and need. This is not the right path to put them on.”

Many medical groups have come out against this kind of legislation. The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry says it “strongly opposes any efforts – legal, legislative, and otherwise – to block access to these recognized interventions.”

Chase Strangio, the deputy director for transgender justice with the American Civil Liberty Union’s LGBTQ & HIV Project, complimented Gov. Hutchinson for his veto. On April 6, he said the ACLU is preparing to challenge the bill in court, CNN said.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Chemicals that pervade our modern world – plastics, pesticides, stain repellents, components of personal hygiene products – are contributing to a decades-long decline in fertility and could pose health risks even into future generations, according to an explosive new book by Shanna Swan, PhD, an environmental and reproductive epidemiologist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Dr. Swan laid out the case that endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) such as phthalates and bisphenol A (BPA) threaten human existence, a conclusion that stems in part from her 2017 meta-analysis that showed a 52% drop in sperm counts from 1973 to 2011 in men in North America, Europe, and Australia.

“This alarming rate of decline could mean the human race will be unable to reproduce itself if the trend continues,” Dr. Swan said in her book, “Count Down: How Our Modern World Is Threatening Sperm Counts, Altering Male and Female Reproductive Development, and Imperiling the Future of the Human Race,” (New York: Scribner, 2021) coauthored with health journalist Stacey Colino.

Her premise that EDCs pose a risk to both male and female fertility is underscored by new research. A March 2021 article in Human Reproduction links prenatal chemical exposures to lowered fertility in a study of 1,045 Swiss military conscripts.

The Swiss men, aged 18-22 years, were significantly more likely to have low semen volume and low total sperm count if their mothers reported that they had occupational exposures to four or more endocrine-disrupting chemicals while they were pregnant. These EDCs, which mimic natural hormones, included pesticides, heavy metals, phthalates, alkylphenolic compounds, and solvents that can be found in agricultural work or hair and beauty salons.

These chemicals are not so-called “forever chemicals” that persist in the human body. But the Swiss study still showed an association between exposure during pregnancy and the future fertility of the male children. “Those apparently small exposures that pass quickly can affect development,” said Dr. Swan, who was not affiliated with the research. “It takes very little in terms of time and amount of chemicals to alter fetal development.”
 

Health risks beyond reproduction

While Count Down is placing a new spotlight on chemical hazards, some major medical organizations have already taken positions on the risks. “Reducing exposure to toxic environmental agents is a critical area of intervention for ob.gyns.,” the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said in an environmental policy priority. “The Endocrine Society is concerned that human health is at risk because the current extensive scientific knowledge on EDCs and their health effects is not effectively translated to regulatory policies that fully protect populations from EDC exposures.”

But for the medical community, addressing the impact of EDCs goes beyond advocacy for regulatory and legislative changes, Dr. Swan said in an interview. Physicians should talk to patients about the importance of reducing their chemical exposure to safeguard their overall health.

“Reproductive health and particularly sperm count, subfertility, and infertility are predictors of lifelong health,” she said. That includes associations between reproductive disorders and “the risk of heart disease, obesity, reproductive cancers and, perhaps most dramatically, with a shortened lifespan.”

Some medical schools are including information on environmental health and exposure risks in the curriculum, said Tracey Woodruff, PhD, MPH, director of the program on reproductive health and the environment at the University of California, San Francisco. She urged physicians to ask patients about potential occupational exposures to hazardous chemicals and provide information about ways to reduce everyday exposures.

For example, safer options include buying organic produce, microwaving food in glass rather than plastic containers and avoiding products that contain phthalate or BPA. “If you’re going to talk to people about what they eat, that’s a perfect venue for talking about the environment,” said Dr. Woodruff, who coedited the textbook, Environmental Impacts on Reproductive Health and Fertility (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, England, 2010).

The UCSF program provides patient guides in English and Spanish with suggestions of ways to reduce chemical exposures at work and at home.
 

Limits in the data

Michael Eisenberg, MD, a urologist and director of male reproductive medicine and surgery at Stanford (Calif.) University Medical Center, often gets questions from patients about how lifestyle and environmental exposures affect male fertility. (In her book, Dr. Swan also discusses how factors such as diet, exercise, smoking, and stress can affect male and female fertility.)

He found the evidence convincing that certain chemicals impact fertility – although, of course, it isn’t ethically possible to do randomized, controlled trials in which some people are intentionally exposed to chemicals to measure the effects. Along with adopting other healthy habits, he advised patients to avoid chemical exposures.

“It’s reasonable to try to eat organic and be mindful of where some of these exposures come from and try to minimize them to the extent possible,” he said.

Rebecca Sokol, MD, MPH, an endocrinologist and expert in male reproductive health, demonstrated the toxic effects of lead on sperm production in studies conducted on rats. But she views low-dose chemical exposure from everyday products as just one aspect of modern reproductive risks, some of which have stronger associations. For example, testosterone therapy impairs sperm production, and finasteride (a medication for male pattern baldness) has been linked to a reversible decline in sperm count.

“When it comes to these ubiquitous chemicals like phthalate and BPA, we explain to the patient that maybe they’re harmful, but we can’t say for sure,” because of the lack of causal data, said Dr. Sokol, professor emerita at the University of Southern California, who was on the panel that drafted the American Urological Association and American Society of Reproductive Medicine guideline on the diagnosis and treatment of male infertility.

Nonetheless, she advised patients to try to reduce exposures. “I don’t see us eradicating all the chemicals that might be bad for us unless we go back to another era. But we can do the best we can to avoid what we can.”
 

A call to action

Dr. Swan likened awareness of the health threat of chemical exposures to the gradual recognition of the climate crisis as a global imperative. Yet in some ways, the scientific work on chemical effects is even more daunting. The Environmental Protection Agency lists more than 86,000 chemicals on its inventory of chemical substances manufactured or imported into the United States.

Little is known about the potential effects of many chemicals that we inhale, ingest or absorb through our skin, Dr. Swan said. In her book, she noted the impact on wildlife – for example, reproductive abnormalities in frogs, alligators, and birds that were exposed to EDCs.

Yet Dr. Swan also takes solace in the lessons from the animal kingdom. Decades after the pesticide DDT, a neurotoxin and endocrine-disruptor, was banned in the United States in 1972, the bald eagle has made a comeback from near-extinction. She also pointed to a 2018 study which found that, while mice exposed to bisphenols passed on reproductive effects to offspring, when the exposures stopped, the effects disappeared after several generations.

“If we stop poisoning ourselves, we can turn this around,” said Dr. Swan. “That’s what I want people to know.”

Count Down frames the issues in language that is much starker than typically found in academic publications. But that is what’s necessary to draw attention to the effects of chemical exposures on human health and reproduction, Dr. Swan said. “I’m saying this in fairly extreme terms to alarm people, to make them realize it is a crisis and they have to act.”

No disclosures were reported.

Chemicals that pervade our modern world – plastics, pesticides, stain repellents, components of personal hygiene products – are contributing to a decades-long decline in fertility and could pose health risks even into future generations, according to an explosive new book by Shanna Swan, PhD, an environmental and reproductive epidemiologist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Dr. Swan laid out the case that endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) such as phthalates and bisphenol A (BPA) threaten human existence, a conclusion that stems in part from her 2017 meta-analysis that showed a 52% drop in sperm counts from 1973 to 2011 in men in North America, Europe, and Australia.

“This alarming rate of decline could mean the human race will be unable to reproduce itself if the trend continues,” Dr. Swan said in her book, “Count Down: How Our Modern World Is Threatening Sperm Counts, Altering Male and Female Reproductive Development, and Imperiling the Future of the Human Race,” (New York: Scribner, 2021) coauthored with health journalist Stacey Colino.

Her premise that EDCs pose a risk to both male and female fertility is underscored by new research. A March 2021 article in Human Reproduction links prenatal chemical exposures to lowered fertility in a study of 1,045 Swiss military conscripts.

The Swiss men, aged 18-22 years, were significantly more likely to have low semen volume and low total sperm count if their mothers reported that they had occupational exposures to four or more endocrine-disrupting chemicals while they were pregnant. These EDCs, which mimic natural hormones, included pesticides, heavy metals, phthalates, alkylphenolic compounds, and solvents that can be found in agricultural work or hair and beauty salons.

These chemicals are not so-called “forever chemicals” that persist in the human body. But the Swiss study still showed an association between exposure during pregnancy and the future fertility of the male children. “Those apparently small exposures that pass quickly can affect development,” said Dr. Swan, who was not affiliated with the research. “It takes very little in terms of time and amount of chemicals to alter fetal development.”
 

Health risks beyond reproduction

While Count Down is placing a new spotlight on chemical hazards, some major medical organizations have already taken positions on the risks. “Reducing exposure to toxic environmental agents is a critical area of intervention for ob.gyns.,” the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said in an environmental policy priority. “The Endocrine Society is concerned that human health is at risk because the current extensive scientific knowledge on EDCs and their health effects is not effectively translated to regulatory policies that fully protect populations from EDC exposures.”

But for the medical community, addressing the impact of EDCs goes beyond advocacy for regulatory and legislative changes, Dr. Swan said in an interview. Physicians should talk to patients about the importance of reducing their chemical exposure to safeguard their overall health.

“Reproductive health and particularly sperm count, subfertility, and infertility are predictors of lifelong health,” she said. That includes associations between reproductive disorders and “the risk of heart disease, obesity, reproductive cancers and, perhaps most dramatically, with a shortened lifespan.”

Some medical schools are including information on environmental health and exposure risks in the curriculum, said Tracey Woodruff, PhD, MPH, director of the program on reproductive health and the environment at the University of California, San Francisco. She urged physicians to ask patients about potential occupational exposures to hazardous chemicals and provide information about ways to reduce everyday exposures.

For example, safer options include buying organic produce, microwaving food in glass rather than plastic containers and avoiding products that contain phthalate or BPA. “If you’re going to talk to people about what they eat, that’s a perfect venue for talking about the environment,” said Dr. Woodruff, who coedited the textbook, Environmental Impacts on Reproductive Health and Fertility (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, England, 2010).

The UCSF program provides patient guides in English and Spanish with suggestions of ways to reduce chemical exposures at work and at home.
 

Limits in the data

Michael Eisenberg, MD, a urologist and director of male reproductive medicine and surgery at Stanford (Calif.) University Medical Center, often gets questions from patients about how lifestyle and environmental exposures affect male fertility. (In her book, Dr. Swan also discusses how factors such as diet, exercise, smoking, and stress can affect male and female fertility.)

He found the evidence convincing that certain chemicals impact fertility – although, of course, it isn’t ethically possible to do randomized, controlled trials in which some people are intentionally exposed to chemicals to measure the effects. Along with adopting other healthy habits, he advised patients to avoid chemical exposures.

“It’s reasonable to try to eat organic and be mindful of where some of these exposures come from and try to minimize them to the extent possible,” he said.

Rebecca Sokol, MD, MPH, an endocrinologist and expert in male reproductive health, demonstrated the toxic effects of lead on sperm production in studies conducted on rats. But she views low-dose chemical exposure from everyday products as just one aspect of modern reproductive risks, some of which have stronger associations. For example, testosterone therapy impairs sperm production, and finasteride (a medication for male pattern baldness) has been linked to a reversible decline in sperm count.

“When it comes to these ubiquitous chemicals like phthalate and BPA, we explain to the patient that maybe they’re harmful, but we can’t say for sure,” because of the lack of causal data, said Dr. Sokol, professor emerita at the University of Southern California, who was on the panel that drafted the American Urological Association and American Society of Reproductive Medicine guideline on the diagnosis and treatment of male infertility.

Nonetheless, she advised patients to try to reduce exposures. “I don’t see us eradicating all the chemicals that might be bad for us unless we go back to another era. But we can do the best we can to avoid what we can.”
 

A call to action

Dr. Swan likened awareness of the health threat of chemical exposures to the gradual recognition of the climate crisis as a global imperative. Yet in some ways, the scientific work on chemical effects is even more daunting. The Environmental Protection Agency lists more than 86,000 chemicals on its inventory of chemical substances manufactured or imported into the United States.

Little is known about the potential effects of many chemicals that we inhale, ingest or absorb through our skin, Dr. Swan said. In her book, she noted the impact on wildlife – for example, reproductive abnormalities in frogs, alligators, and birds that were exposed to EDCs.

Yet Dr. Swan also takes solace in the lessons from the animal kingdom. Decades after the pesticide DDT, a neurotoxin and endocrine-disruptor, was banned in the United States in 1972, the bald eagle has made a comeback from near-extinction. She also pointed to a 2018 study which found that, while mice exposed to bisphenols passed on reproductive effects to offspring, when the exposures stopped, the effects disappeared after several generations.

“If we stop poisoning ourselves, we can turn this around,” said Dr. Swan. “That’s what I want people to know.”

Count Down frames the issues in language that is much starker than typically found in academic publications. But that is what’s necessary to draw attention to the effects of chemical exposures on human health and reproduction, Dr. Swan said. “I’m saying this in fairly extreme terms to alarm people, to make them realize it is a crisis and they have to act.”

No disclosures were reported.

Chemicals that pervade our modern world – plastics, pesticides, stain repellents, components of personal hygiene products – are contributing to a decades-long decline in fertility and could pose health risks even into future generations, according to an explosive new book by Shanna Swan, PhD, an environmental and reproductive epidemiologist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

Dr. Swan laid out the case that endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) such as phthalates and bisphenol A (BPA) threaten human existence, a conclusion that stems in part from her 2017 meta-analysis that showed a 52% drop in sperm counts from 1973 to 2011 in men in North America, Europe, and Australia.

“This alarming rate of decline could mean the human race will be unable to reproduce itself if the trend continues,” Dr. Swan said in her book, “Count Down: How Our Modern World Is Threatening Sperm Counts, Altering Male and Female Reproductive Development, and Imperiling the Future of the Human Race,” (New York: Scribner, 2021) coauthored with health journalist Stacey Colino.

Her premise that EDCs pose a risk to both male and female fertility is underscored by new research. A March 2021 article in Human Reproduction links prenatal chemical exposures to lowered fertility in a study of 1,045 Swiss military conscripts.

The Swiss men, aged 18-22 years, were significantly more likely to have low semen volume and low total sperm count if their mothers reported that they had occupational exposures to four or more endocrine-disrupting chemicals while they were pregnant. These EDCs, which mimic natural hormones, included pesticides, heavy metals, phthalates, alkylphenolic compounds, and solvents that can be found in agricultural work or hair and beauty salons.

These chemicals are not so-called “forever chemicals” that persist in the human body. But the Swiss study still showed an association between exposure during pregnancy and the future fertility of the male children. “Those apparently small exposures that pass quickly can affect development,” said Dr. Swan, who was not affiliated with the research. “It takes very little in terms of time and amount of chemicals to alter fetal development.”
 

Health risks beyond reproduction

While Count Down is placing a new spotlight on chemical hazards, some major medical organizations have already taken positions on the risks. “Reducing exposure to toxic environmental agents is a critical area of intervention for ob.gyns.,” the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said in an environmental policy priority. “The Endocrine Society is concerned that human health is at risk because the current extensive scientific knowledge on EDCs and their health effects is not effectively translated to regulatory policies that fully protect populations from EDC exposures.”

But for the medical community, addressing the impact of EDCs goes beyond advocacy for regulatory and legislative changes, Dr. Swan said in an interview. Physicians should talk to patients about the importance of reducing their chemical exposure to safeguard their overall health.

“Reproductive health and particularly sperm count, subfertility, and infertility are predictors of lifelong health,” she said. That includes associations between reproductive disorders and “the risk of heart disease, obesity, reproductive cancers and, perhaps most dramatically, with a shortened lifespan.”

Some medical schools are including information on environmental health and exposure risks in the curriculum, said Tracey Woodruff, PhD, MPH, director of the program on reproductive health and the environment at the University of California, San Francisco. She urged physicians to ask patients about potential occupational exposures to hazardous chemicals and provide information about ways to reduce everyday exposures.

For example, safer options include buying organic produce, microwaving food in glass rather than plastic containers and avoiding products that contain phthalate or BPA. “If you’re going to talk to people about what they eat, that’s a perfect venue for talking about the environment,” said Dr. Woodruff, who coedited the textbook, Environmental Impacts on Reproductive Health and Fertility (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, England, 2010).

The UCSF program provides patient guides in English and Spanish with suggestions of ways to reduce chemical exposures at work and at home.
 

Limits in the data

Michael Eisenberg, MD, a urologist and director of male reproductive medicine and surgery at Stanford (Calif.) University Medical Center, often gets questions from patients about how lifestyle and environmental exposures affect male fertility. (In her book, Dr. Swan also discusses how factors such as diet, exercise, smoking, and stress can affect male and female fertility.)

He found the evidence convincing that certain chemicals impact fertility – although, of course, it isn’t ethically possible to do randomized, controlled trials in which some people are intentionally exposed to chemicals to measure the effects. Along with adopting other healthy habits, he advised patients to avoid chemical exposures.

“It’s reasonable to try to eat organic and be mindful of where some of these exposures come from and try to minimize them to the extent possible,” he said.

Rebecca Sokol, MD, MPH, an endocrinologist and expert in male reproductive health, demonstrated the toxic effects of lead on sperm production in studies conducted on rats. But she views low-dose chemical exposure from everyday products as just one aspect of modern reproductive risks, some of which have stronger associations. For example, testosterone therapy impairs sperm production, and finasteride (a medication for male pattern baldness) has been linked to a reversible decline in sperm count.

“When it comes to these ubiquitous chemicals like phthalate and BPA, we explain to the patient that maybe they’re harmful, but we can’t say for sure,” because of the lack of causal data, said Dr. Sokol, professor emerita at the University of Southern California, who was on the panel that drafted the American Urological Association and American Society of Reproductive Medicine guideline on the diagnosis and treatment of male infertility.

Nonetheless, she advised patients to try to reduce exposures. “I don’t see us eradicating all the chemicals that might be bad for us unless we go back to another era. But we can do the best we can to avoid what we can.”
 

A call to action

Dr. Swan likened awareness of the health threat of chemical exposures to the gradual recognition of the climate crisis as a global imperative. Yet in some ways, the scientific work on chemical effects is even more daunting. The Environmental Protection Agency lists more than 86,000 chemicals on its inventory of chemical substances manufactured or imported into the United States.

Little is known about the potential effects of many chemicals that we inhale, ingest or absorb through our skin, Dr. Swan said. In her book, she noted the impact on wildlife – for example, reproductive abnormalities in frogs, alligators, and birds that were exposed to EDCs.

Yet Dr. Swan also takes solace in the lessons from the animal kingdom. Decades after the pesticide DDT, a neurotoxin and endocrine-disruptor, was banned in the United States in 1972, the bald eagle has made a comeback from near-extinction. She also pointed to a 2018 study which found that, while mice exposed to bisphenols passed on reproductive effects to offspring, when the exposures stopped, the effects disappeared after several generations.

“If we stop poisoning ourselves, we can turn this around,” said Dr. Swan. “That’s what I want people to know.”

Count Down frames the issues in language that is much starker than typically found in academic publications. But that is what’s necessary to draw attention to the effects of chemical exposures on human health and reproduction, Dr. Swan said. “I’m saying this in fairly extreme terms to alarm people, to make them realize it is a crisis and they have to act.”

No disclosures were reported.

In a large cohort of insured working adults with severe obesity and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), the rate of incident cancer was lower during a 10-month median follow-up period among those who underwent bariatric surgery. The rate was especially lower with regard to obesity-related cancers. The risk reduction was greater among patients with cirrhosis.

Among almost 100,000 patients with severe obesity (body mass index >40 kg/m²) and NAFLD, those who underwent bariatric surgery had an 18% and 35% lower risk of developing any cancer or obesity-related cancer, respectively.

Bariatric surgery was associated with a significantly lower risk of being diagnosed with colorectal, pancreatic, endometrial, and thyroid cancer, as well as hepatocellular carcinoma and multiple myeloma (all obesity-related cancers). The findings are from an observational study by Vinod K. Rustgi, MD, MBA, and colleagues, which was published online March 17, 2021, in Gastroenterology.

It was not surprising that bariatric surgery is effective in reducing the malignancy rate among patients with cirrhosis, the researchers wrote, because the surgery results in long-term weight loss, resolution of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), and regression of fibrosis.

“Cirrhosis can happen from fatty liver disease or NASH,” Dr. Rustgi, a hepatologist at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J., explained to this news organization. “It’s becoming the fastest growing indication for liver transplant, but also the reason for increased rates of hepatocellular carcinoma.”

Current treatment for patients with obesity and fatty liver disease begins with lifestyle changes to lose weight, he continued. “As people lose 10% of their weight, they actually start to see regression of fibrosis in the liver that is correlated with [lower rates of] malignancy outcomes and other deleterious outcomes.” But long-lasting weight loss is extremely difficult to achieve.

Future studies “may identify new targets and treatments, such as antidiabetic-, satiety-, or GLP-1-based medications, for chemoprevention in NAFLD/NASH,” the investigators suggested. However, pharmaceutical agents will likely be very expensive when they eventually get marketed, Dr. Rustgi observed.

Although “bariatric surgery is a more aggressive approach than lifestyle modifications, surgery may provide additional benefits, such as improved quality of life and decreased long-term health care costs,” he and his coauthors concluded.
 

Rising rates of fatty liver disease, obesity

An estimated 30% of the population of the United States has NAFLD, the most common chronic liver disease, the researchers noted in their article. The prevalence of NAFLD increased 2.8-fold in the United States between 2003 and 2011, in parallel with increasing obesity.

NAFLD is more common among male patients with obesity and diabetes and Hispanic patients; “70% of [patients with diabetes] may have fatty liver disease, according to certain surveys,” Dr. Rustgi noted.

Cancer is the second greatest cause of mortality among patients with obesity and NAFLD, he continued, after cardiovascular disease. Cancer mortality is higher than mortality from liver disease.

Obesity-related cancers include adenocarcinoma of the esophagus, cancers of the breast (in postmenopausal women), colon, rectum, endometrium (corpus uterus), gallbladder, gastric cardia, kidney (renal cell), liver, ovary, pancreas, and thyroid, as well as meningioma and multiple myeloma, according to a 2016 report from the International Agency for Research on Cancer working group.

Obesity-related cancer accounted for 40% of all cancer in the United States in 2014 – 55% of cancers in women, and 24% of cancers in men, according to a study published in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report in 2017, as previously reported by this news organization.

Several studies, including one presented at Obesity Week in 2019 and later published, have shown that bariatric surgery is linked with a lower risk for cancer in general populations.

One meta-analysis reported that NAFLD is an independent risk factor for cholangiocarcinoma and colorectal, breast, gastric, pancreatic, prostate, and esophageal cancers. In another study, NAFLD was associated with a twofold increased risk for hepatocellular carcinoma and uterine, stomach, pancreatic, and colon cancers, Dr. Rustgi and colleagues noted.

Until now, the impact of bariatric surgery on the risk for cancer among patients with obesity and NAFLD was unknown.
 

Does bariatric surgery curb cancer risk in liver disease?

The researchers examined insurance claims data from the national MarketScan database from Jan. 1, 2007, to Dec. 31, 2017, for patients aged 18-64 years who had health insurance from 350 employers and 100 insurers. They identified 98,090 patients with severe obesity who were newly diagnosed with NAFLD during 2008-2017.

Roughly a third of the cohort (33,435 patients) underwent bariatric surgery. From 2008 to 2017, laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomies increased from 4% of bariatric procedures to 68% of all surgeries. Laparoscopic adjustable gastric band and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass procedures fell from 35% to less than 1% and from 49% to 28%, respectively.

Patients who underwent bariatric surgery were younger (mean age, 44 vs. 46 years), were more likely to be women (74% vs. 62%), and were less likely to have a history of smoking (6% vs. 10%).

During a mean follow-up of 22 months (and a median follow-up of 10 months), there were 911 incident cases of obesity-related cancers. These included cancer of the colon (116 cases), rectum (15), breast (in postmenopausal women; 131), kidney (120), esophagus (16), gastric cardia (8), gallbladder (4), pancreas (44), ovaries (74), endometrium (135), and thyroid (143), as well as hepatocellular carcinoma (49), multiple myeloma (50), and meningioma (6). There were 1,912 incident cases of other cancers, such as brain and lung cancers and leukemia.

A total of 258 patients who underwent bariatric surgery developed an obesity-related cancer (an incidence of 3.83 per 1,000 person-years), compared with 653 patients who did not have bariatric surgery (an incidence of 5.63 per 1,000 person-years).

The researchers noted that study limitations include the fact that it was restricted to privately insured individuals aged 18-64 years with severe obesity. In addition, “the short median follow-up may underestimate the full effect of bariatric surgery on cancer risk,” they wrote.

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In a large cohort of insured working adults with severe obesity and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), the rate of incident cancer was lower during a 10-month median follow-up period among those who underwent bariatric surgery. The rate was especially lower with regard to obesity-related cancers. The risk reduction was greater among patients with cirrhosis.

Among almost 100,000 patients with severe obesity (body mass index >40 kg/m²) and NAFLD, those who underwent bariatric surgery had an 18% and 35% lower risk of developing any cancer or obesity-related cancer, respectively.

Bariatric surgery was associated with a significantly lower risk of being diagnosed with colorectal, pancreatic, endometrial, and thyroid cancer, as well as hepatocellular carcinoma and multiple myeloma (all obesity-related cancers). The findings are from an observational study by Vinod K. Rustgi, MD, MBA, and colleagues, which was published online March 17, 2021, in Gastroenterology.

It was not surprising that bariatric surgery is effective in reducing the malignancy rate among patients with cirrhosis, the researchers wrote, because the surgery results in long-term weight loss, resolution of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), and regression of fibrosis.

“Cirrhosis can happen from fatty liver disease or NASH,” Dr. Rustgi, a hepatologist at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J., explained to this news organization. “It’s becoming the fastest growing indication for liver transplant, but also the reason for increased rates of hepatocellular carcinoma.”

Current treatment for patients with obesity and fatty liver disease begins with lifestyle changes to lose weight, he continued. “As people lose 10% of their weight, they actually start to see regression of fibrosis in the liver that is correlated with [lower rates of] malignancy outcomes and other deleterious outcomes.” But long-lasting weight loss is extremely difficult to achieve.

Future studies “may identify new targets and treatments, such as antidiabetic-, satiety-, or GLP-1-based medications, for chemoprevention in NAFLD/NASH,” the investigators suggested. However, pharmaceutical agents will likely be very expensive when they eventually get marketed, Dr. Rustgi observed.

Although “bariatric surgery is a more aggressive approach than lifestyle modifications, surgery may provide additional benefits, such as improved quality of life and decreased long-term health care costs,” he and his coauthors concluded.
 

Rising rates of fatty liver disease, obesity

An estimated 30% of the population of the United States has NAFLD, the most common chronic liver disease, the researchers noted in their article. The prevalence of NAFLD increased 2.8-fold in the United States between 2003 and 2011, in parallel with increasing obesity.

NAFLD is more common among male patients with obesity and diabetes and Hispanic patients; “70% of [patients with diabetes] may have fatty liver disease, according to certain surveys,” Dr. Rustgi noted.

Cancer is the second greatest cause of mortality among patients with obesity and NAFLD, he continued, after cardiovascular disease. Cancer mortality is higher than mortality from liver disease.

Obesity-related cancers include adenocarcinoma of the esophagus, cancers of the breast (in postmenopausal women), colon, rectum, endometrium (corpus uterus), gallbladder, gastric cardia, kidney (renal cell), liver, ovary, pancreas, and thyroid, as well as meningioma and multiple myeloma, according to a 2016 report from the International Agency for Research on Cancer working group.

Obesity-related cancer accounted for 40% of all cancer in the United States in 2014 – 55% of cancers in women, and 24% of cancers in men, according to a study published in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report in 2017, as previously reported by this news organization.

Several studies, including one presented at Obesity Week in 2019 and later published, have shown that bariatric surgery is linked with a lower risk for cancer in general populations.

One meta-analysis reported that NAFLD is an independent risk factor for cholangiocarcinoma and colorectal, breast, gastric, pancreatic, prostate, and esophageal cancers. In another study, NAFLD was associated with a twofold increased risk for hepatocellular carcinoma and uterine, stomach, pancreatic, and colon cancers, Dr. Rustgi and colleagues noted.

Until now, the impact of bariatric surgery on the risk for cancer among patients with obesity and NAFLD was unknown.
 

Does bariatric surgery curb cancer risk in liver disease?

The researchers examined insurance claims data from the national MarketScan database from Jan. 1, 2007, to Dec. 31, 2017, for patients aged 18-64 years who had health insurance from 350 employers and 100 insurers. They identified 98,090 patients with severe obesity who were newly diagnosed with NAFLD during 2008-2017.

Roughly a third of the cohort (33,435 patients) underwent bariatric surgery. From 2008 to 2017, laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomies increased from 4% of bariatric procedures to 68% of all surgeries. Laparoscopic adjustable gastric band and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass procedures fell from 35% to less than 1% and from 49% to 28%, respectively.

Patients who underwent bariatric surgery were younger (mean age, 44 vs. 46 years), were more likely to be women (74% vs. 62%), and were less likely to have a history of smoking (6% vs. 10%).

During a mean follow-up of 22 months (and a median follow-up of 10 months), there were 911 incident cases of obesity-related cancers. These included cancer of the colon (116 cases), rectum (15), breast (in postmenopausal women; 131), kidney (120), esophagus (16), gastric cardia (8), gallbladder (4), pancreas (44), ovaries (74), endometrium (135), and thyroid (143), as well as hepatocellular carcinoma (49), multiple myeloma (50), and meningioma (6). There were 1,912 incident cases of other cancers, such as brain and lung cancers and leukemia.

A total of 258 patients who underwent bariatric surgery developed an obesity-related cancer (an incidence of 3.83 per 1,000 person-years), compared with 653 patients who did not have bariatric surgery (an incidence of 5.63 per 1,000 person-years).

The researchers noted that study limitations include the fact that it was restricted to privately insured individuals aged 18-64 years with severe obesity. In addition, “the short median follow-up may underestimate the full effect of bariatric surgery on cancer risk,” they wrote.

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In a large cohort of insured working adults with severe obesity and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), the rate of incident cancer was lower during a 10-month median follow-up period among those who underwent bariatric surgery. The rate was especially lower with regard to obesity-related cancers. The risk reduction was greater among patients with cirrhosis.

Among almost 100,000 patients with severe obesity (body mass index >40 kg/m²) and NAFLD, those who underwent bariatric surgery had an 18% and 35% lower risk of developing any cancer or obesity-related cancer, respectively.

Bariatric surgery was associated with a significantly lower risk of being diagnosed with colorectal, pancreatic, endometrial, and thyroid cancer, as well as hepatocellular carcinoma and multiple myeloma (all obesity-related cancers). The findings are from an observational study by Vinod K. Rustgi, MD, MBA, and colleagues, which was published online March 17, 2021, in Gastroenterology.

It was not surprising that bariatric surgery is effective in reducing the malignancy rate among patients with cirrhosis, the researchers wrote, because the surgery results in long-term weight loss, resolution of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), and regression of fibrosis.

“Cirrhosis can happen from fatty liver disease or NASH,” Dr. Rustgi, a hepatologist at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, N.J., explained to this news organization. “It’s becoming the fastest growing indication for liver transplant, but also the reason for increased rates of hepatocellular carcinoma.”

Current treatment for patients with obesity and fatty liver disease begins with lifestyle changes to lose weight, he continued. “As people lose 10% of their weight, they actually start to see regression of fibrosis in the liver that is correlated with [lower rates of] malignancy outcomes and other deleterious outcomes.” But long-lasting weight loss is extremely difficult to achieve.

Future studies “may identify new targets and treatments, such as antidiabetic-, satiety-, or GLP-1-based medications, for chemoprevention in NAFLD/NASH,” the investigators suggested. However, pharmaceutical agents will likely be very expensive when they eventually get marketed, Dr. Rustgi observed.

Although “bariatric surgery is a more aggressive approach than lifestyle modifications, surgery may provide additional benefits, such as improved quality of life and decreased long-term health care costs,” he and his coauthors concluded.
 

Rising rates of fatty liver disease, obesity

An estimated 30% of the population of the United States has NAFLD, the most common chronic liver disease, the researchers noted in their article. The prevalence of NAFLD increased 2.8-fold in the United States between 2003 and 2011, in parallel with increasing obesity.

NAFLD is more common among male patients with obesity and diabetes and Hispanic patients; “70% of [patients with diabetes] may have fatty liver disease, according to certain surveys,” Dr. Rustgi noted.

Cancer is the second greatest cause of mortality among patients with obesity and NAFLD, he continued, after cardiovascular disease. Cancer mortality is higher than mortality from liver disease.

Obesity-related cancers include adenocarcinoma of the esophagus, cancers of the breast (in postmenopausal women), colon, rectum, endometrium (corpus uterus), gallbladder, gastric cardia, kidney (renal cell), liver, ovary, pancreas, and thyroid, as well as meningioma and multiple myeloma, according to a 2016 report from the International Agency for Research on Cancer working group.

Obesity-related cancer accounted for 40% of all cancer in the United States in 2014 – 55% of cancers in women, and 24% of cancers in men, according to a study published in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report in 2017, as previously reported by this news organization.

Several studies, including one presented at Obesity Week in 2019 and later published, have shown that bariatric surgery is linked with a lower risk for cancer in general populations.

One meta-analysis reported that NAFLD is an independent risk factor for cholangiocarcinoma and colorectal, breast, gastric, pancreatic, prostate, and esophageal cancers. In another study, NAFLD was associated with a twofold increased risk for hepatocellular carcinoma and uterine, stomach, pancreatic, and colon cancers, Dr. Rustgi and colleagues noted.

Until now, the impact of bariatric surgery on the risk for cancer among patients with obesity and NAFLD was unknown.
 

Does bariatric surgery curb cancer risk in liver disease?

The researchers examined insurance claims data from the national MarketScan database from Jan. 1, 2007, to Dec. 31, 2017, for patients aged 18-64 years who had health insurance from 350 employers and 100 insurers. They identified 98,090 patients with severe obesity who were newly diagnosed with NAFLD during 2008-2017.

Roughly a third of the cohort (33,435 patients) underwent bariatric surgery. From 2008 to 2017, laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomies increased from 4% of bariatric procedures to 68% of all surgeries. Laparoscopic adjustable gastric band and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass procedures fell from 35% to less than 1% and from 49% to 28%, respectively.

Patients who underwent bariatric surgery were younger (mean age, 44 vs. 46 years), were more likely to be women (74% vs. 62%), and were less likely to have a history of smoking (6% vs. 10%).

During a mean follow-up of 22 months (and a median follow-up of 10 months), there were 911 incident cases of obesity-related cancers. These included cancer of the colon (116 cases), rectum (15), breast (in postmenopausal women; 131), kidney (120), esophagus (16), gastric cardia (8), gallbladder (4), pancreas (44), ovaries (74), endometrium (135), and thyroid (143), as well as hepatocellular carcinoma (49), multiple myeloma (50), and meningioma (6). There were 1,912 incident cases of other cancers, such as brain and lung cancers and leukemia.

A total of 258 patients who underwent bariatric surgery developed an obesity-related cancer (an incidence of 3.83 per 1,000 person-years), compared with 653 patients who did not have bariatric surgery (an incidence of 5.63 per 1,000 person-years).

The researchers noted that study limitations include the fact that it was restricted to privately insured individuals aged 18-64 years with severe obesity. In addition, “the short median follow-up may underestimate the full effect of bariatric surgery on cancer risk,” they wrote.

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.